People v. Valdez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Valdez

291 A.D.2d 285, 737 N.Y.S.2d 292, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1739

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

DecidedFebruary 19, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 291 A.D.2d 285 (People v. Valdez) 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. Valdez, 291 A.D.2d 285, 737 N.Y.S.2d 292, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1739 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bruce Allen, J.), rendered June 7, 2000, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 4V2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s request for an agency charge was properly denied since there was no reasonable view of the evidence, viewed most favorably to defendant, that defendant participated in the transaction as an agent for the undercover buyer (see, People v Herring, 83 NY2d 780). The evidence clearly established that defendant acted as a steerer and order taker in the drug transaction, and “there was no evidence that defendant had any other reason to risk arrest by assisting a total stranger in purchasing drugs” (People v Elvy, 277 AD2d 80, 80, lv denied 96 NY2d 783). Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Tom, Mazzarelli, Lemer and Buckley, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bruce Allen, J.), rendered June 7, 2000, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 4V2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s request for an agency charge was properly denied since there was no reasonable view of the evidence, viewed most favorably to defendant, that defendant participated in the transaction as an agent for the undercover buyer (see, People v Herring, 83 NY2d 780). The evidence clearly established that defendant acted as a steerer and order taker in the drug transaction, and “there was no evidence that defendant had any other reason to risk arrest by assisting a total stranger in purchasing drugs” (People v Elvy, 277 AD2d 80, 80, lv denied 96 NY2d 783). Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Tom, Mazzarelli, Lemer and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

291 A.D.2d 285, 737 N.Y.S.2d 292, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1739, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-valdez-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack