People v. Spencer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Spencer

83 A.D.3d 1576, 921 N.Y.S.2d 586

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

DecidedApril 29, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 83 A.D.3d 1576 (People v. Spencer) 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. Spencer, 83 A.D.3d 1576, 921 N.Y.S.2d 586 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Cayuga County Court (Thomas G. Leone, J.), rendered October 8, 2009. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (four counts) and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (four counts).

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of four counts each of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.39 [1]) and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (§ 220.16 [1]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, County Court properly granted the People’s request to amend [1577]*1577the indictment to delete language identifying the buyer as an undercover police officer. That amendment “did not change the theory of the prosecution, nor did it ‘otherwise tend to prejudice the defendant on the merits’ ” (People v Brink, 31 AD3d 1139, 1140 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 865 [2006], quoting CPL 200.70 [1]; see People v Waxter, 268 AD2d 899, 900 [2000]; People v Brown, 196 AD2d 428, 429-430 [1993], lv denied 82 NY2d 804 [1993]). We further conclude that the court’s imposition of consecutive sentences is not unduly harsh or severe. Present— Scudder, P.J., Fahey, Carni, Green and Gorski, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Cayuga County Court (Thomas G. Leone, J.), rendered October 8, 2009. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (four counts) and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (four counts).

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of four counts each of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.39 [1]) and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (§ 220.16 [1]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, County Court properly granted the People’s request to amend [1577]*1577the indictment to delete language identifying the buyer as an undercover police officer. That amendment “did not change the theory of the prosecution, nor did it ‘otherwise tend to prejudice the defendant on the merits’ ” (People v Brink, 31 AD3d 1139, 1140 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 865 [2006], quoting CPL 200.70 [1]; see People v Waxter, 268 AD2d 899, 900 [2000]; People v Brown, 196 AD2d 428, 429-430 [1993], lv denied 82 NY2d 804 [1993]). We further conclude that the court’s imposition of consecutive sentences is not unduly harsh or severe. Present— Scudder, P.J., Fahey, Carni, Green and Gorski, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

83 A.D.3d 1576, 921 N.Y.S.2d 586, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-spencer-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack