People v. Shanley

15 A.D.3d 921, 788 N.Y.S.2d 781, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1067
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 4, 2005
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 15 A.D.3d 921 (People v. Shanley) 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. Shanley, 15 A.D.3d 921, 788 N.Y.S.2d 781, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1067 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Wyoming County Court (Mark H. Dadd, J.), rendered February 26, 2004. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, criminal sale of marihuana in the fourth degree and unlawful possession of marihuana.

[922]*922It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 220.34 [1]), criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree (§ 220.06 [1]), criminal sale of marihuana in the fourth degree (§ 221.40) and unlawful possession of marihuana (§ 221.05), defendant contends that County Court erred in admitting a partially inaudible electronic surveillance tape. We reject that contention (see People v Cleveland, 273 AD2d 787, 788 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 864 [2000]). Defendant further contends that the court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the second count of the indictment for facial insufficiency and granting the People’s motion to amend the indictment. The failure of the second count of the indictment to include an element of the crime did not constitute a jurisdictional defect because that count specifically referred to the applicable section of the Penal Law (see People v Marshall, 299 AD2d 809, 810 [2002]). We further reject defendant’s contention that the sentence is unduly harsh or severe. Present — Green, J.P., Scudder, Martoche, Smith and Lawton, JJ.

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

Related

People v. Ashby
2021 NY Slip Op 07434 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
People v. Snyder
2020 NY Slip Op 06919 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
MORRIS, JONATHAN, PEOPLE v
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014
People v. Morris
117 A.D.3d 1580 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
People v. Santos
21 Misc. 3d 360 (New York Supreme Court, 2008)
People v. Green
17 A.D.3d 1076 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
15 A.D.3d 921, 788 N.Y.S.2d 781, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1067, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-shanley-nyappdiv-2005.