People v. Vergara

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Vergara

45 A.D.3d 272, 843 N.Y.S.2d 830

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

DecidedNovember 1, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 45 A.D.3d 272 (People v. Vergara) 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. Vergara, 45 A.D.3d 272, 843 N.Y.S.2d 830 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Megan Tallmer, J.), rendered March 2, 2006, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 9 to 18 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. Defendant’s course of conduct warrants the conclusion that he was a participant in the drug transaction, whose role included bringing a customer to a seller, specifying the price, accepting payment, and taking an order (see People v Bello, 92 NY2d 523 [1998]).

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s mistrial motion, made on the basis of the prosecu[273]*273tor’s summation. The challenged remarks constituted fair comment on the evidence, made within the bounds of permissible advocacy, and were responsive to defense arguments (see People v Overlee, 236 AD2d 133 [1997], lv denied 91 NY2d.976 [1998]; People v D'Alessandro, 184 AD2d 114, 118-119 [1992], lv denied 81 NY2d 884 [1993]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Tom, J.P., Saxe, Sullivan, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Megan Tallmer, J.), rendered March 2, 2006, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 9 to 18 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. Defendant’s course of conduct warrants the conclusion that he was a participant in the drug transaction, whose role included bringing a customer to a seller, specifying the price, accepting payment, and taking an order (see People v Bello, 92 NY2d 523 [1998]).

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s mistrial motion, made on the basis of the prosecu[273]*273tor’s summation. The challenged remarks constituted fair comment on the evidence, made within the bounds of permissible advocacy, and were responsive to defense arguments (see People v Overlee, 236 AD2d 133 [1997], lv denied 91 NY2d.976 [1998]; People v D'Alessandro, 184 AD2d 114, 118-119 [1992], lv denied 81 NY2d 884 [1993]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Tom, J.P., Saxe, Sullivan, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 A.D.3d 272, 843 N.Y.S.2d 830, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-vergara-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack