People v. Tineo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Tineo

16 A.D.3d 165, 790 N.Y.S.2d 452, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2233

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

DecidedMarch 8, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 16 A.D.3d 165 (People v. Tineo) 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. Tineo, 16 A.D.3d 165, 790 N.Y.S.2d 452, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2233 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

[166]*166Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William Leibovitz, J), rendered April 2, 2001, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly declined to charge criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree as a lesser included offense. Given the large quantity of drugs possessed by defendant, their packaging, and the police observation of defendant making what appeared to be a sale immediately prior to his arrest, there was no reasonable view of the evidence to support a finding that defendant’s possession was without intent to sell (see People v Scarborough, 49 NY2d 364 [1980]; People v Henry, 272 AD2d 238 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 890 [2000]). Concur— Tom, J.P., Saxe, Ellerin, Nardelli and Sweeny, JJ.

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

[166]*166Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William Leibovitz, J), rendered April 2, 2001, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly declined to charge criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree as a lesser included offense. Given the large quantity of drugs possessed by defendant, their packaging, and the police observation of defendant making what appeared to be a sale immediately prior to his arrest, there was no reasonable view of the evidence to support a finding that defendant’s possession was without intent to sell (see People v Scarborough, 49 NY2d 364 [1980]; People v Henry, 272 AD2d 238 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 890 [2000]). Concur— Tom, J.P., Saxe, Ellerin, Nardelli and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 A.D.3d 165, 790 N.Y.S.2d 452, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2233, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-tineo-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack