People v. Sanderson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Sanderson

220 A.D.2d 784, 633 N.Y.S.2d 987, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10547

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 30, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 220 A.D.2d 784 (People v. Sanderson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Sanderson, 220 A.D.2d 784, 633 N.Y.S.2d 987, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10547 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Corrado, J.), rendered July 27, 1994, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]). Considering all of the factors (see, People v Gilliard, 177 AD2d 707), the evidence supports the finding that the defendant was a seller of drugs and not merely a procuring agent for an undercover police officer.

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Rosenblatt, J. P., Pizzuto, Altman and Hart, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Corrado, J.), rendered July 27, 1994, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]). Considering all of the factors (see, People v Gilliard, 177 AD2d 707), the evidence supports the finding that the defendant was a seller of drugs and not merely a procuring agent for an undercover police officer.

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Rosenblatt, J. P., Pizzuto, Altman and Hart, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

220 A.D.2d 784, 633 N.Y.S.2d 987, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10547, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-sanderson-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack