People v. Starnes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Starnes

58 A.D.3d 489, 869 N.Y.S.2d 907

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

DecidedJanuary 15, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 58 A.D.3d 489 (People v. Starnes) 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. Starnes, 58 A.D.3d 489, 869 N.Y.S.2d 907 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Renee A. White, J.), rendered August 29, 2006, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third and fourth degrees, and unlawful possession of marijuana, and sentencing him, as a second felony drug offender whose prior felony conviction was a violent felony, to an aggregate term of six years and a fine of $50, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning credibility, including its evaluation of minor discrepancies in the accounts of the People’s witnesses, and its rejection of defendant’s account of how he came into possession of a bag containing a supply of drugs. Concur—Tom, J.P., Gonzalez, Buckley, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Renee A. White, J.), rendered August 29, 2006, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third and fourth degrees, and unlawful possession of marijuana, and sentencing him, as a second felony drug offender whose prior felony conviction was a violent felony, to an aggregate term of six years and a fine of $50, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning credibility, including its evaluation of minor discrepancies in the accounts of the People’s witnesses, and its rejection of defendant’s account of how he came into possession of a bag containing a supply of drugs. Concur—Tom, J.P., Gonzalez, Buckley, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

58 A.D.3d 489, 869 N.Y.S.2d 907, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-starnes-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack