People v. Smalls

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Smalls

116 A.D.3d 474, 982 N.Y.S.2d 886

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

DecidedApril 8, 2014

StatusPublished

This text of 116 A.D.3d 474 (People v. Smalls) 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. Smalls, 116 A.D.3d 474, 982 N.Y.S.2d 886 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Robert Sackett, J.), rendered December 19, 2011, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and sentencing him to a term of 30 days, unanimously affirmed.

The information was not jurisdictionally defective. Nonhearsay allegations established every element of the charged offense, notwithstanding the absence of a laboratory report (see People v Kalin, 12 NY3d 225 [2009]). Based on the allegation that defendant possessed a glass pipe containing “a tar-like substance” that, based on the officer’s “training in the recognition of controlled substances and their packaging, . . . [he] believed to be crack-cocaine residue,” an inference can be drawn that defendant knew that he was in possession of cocaine (see People v Jennings, 22 NY3d 1001 [2013]). We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining arguments. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Andrias, DeGrasse, Feinman and Kapnick, JJ.

Motion for permission to file supplemental brief denied. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Andrias, DeGrasse, Feinman and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Robert Sackett, J.), rendered December 19, 2011, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and sentencing him to a term of 30 days, unanimously affirmed.

The information was not jurisdictionally defective. Nonhearsay allegations established every element of the charged offense, notwithstanding the absence of a laboratory report (see People v Kalin, 12 NY3d 225 [2009]). Based on the allegation that defendant possessed a glass pipe containing “a tar-like substance” that, based on the officer’s “training in the recognition of controlled substances and their packaging, . . . [he] believed to be crack-cocaine residue,” an inference can be drawn that defendant knew that he was in possession of cocaine (see People v Jennings, 22 NY3d 1001 [2013]). We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining arguments. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Andrias, DeGrasse, Feinman and Kapnick, JJ.

Motion for permission to file supplemental brief denied. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Andrias, DeGrasse, Feinman and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

116 A.D.3d 474, 982 N.Y.S.2d 886, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-smalls-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack