People v. Vickers

177 A.D.2d 608, 576 N.Y.S.2d 315, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14521
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 12, 1991
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 177 A.D.2d 608 (People v. Vickers) 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. Vickers, 177 A.D.2d 608, 576 N.Y.S.2d 315, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14521 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cooperman, J.), rendered January 4, 1990, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of five to fifteen years imprisonment.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the sentence to an indeterminate term of two to six years imprisonment; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence adduced at trial established that the defendant sold a vial of cocaine to an undercover officer. At trial, the undercover officer identified the defendant as the perpetrator of the crime. Although a search of the defendant did not reveal any drugs or prerecorded money, that fact was before the jury, which had the opportunity to weigh the evidence and resolve issues of credibility (see, People [609]*609v Gaimari, 176 NY 84; People v Gamble, 173 AD2d 555). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see, People v Garafolo, 44 AD2d 86, 88). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

We find that the sentence was excessive to the extent indicted herein. We have reviewed the defendant’s remaining contentions and find they do not require reversal. Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Lawrence and O’Brien, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Casey
181 Misc. 2d 744 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
People v. Corona
232 A.D.2d 652 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
People v. Clausell
223 A.D.2d 598 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
People v. Pagan
221 A.D.2d 572 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
People v. Brown
208 A.D.2d 414 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
People v. Marquez
208 A.D.2d 396 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
People v. Tomlinson
199 A.D.2d 352 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
People v. Anderson
199 A.D.2d 273 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
People v. Rua
198 A.D.2d 311 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
People v. Norwood
191 A.D.2d 519 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
In re George J.
187 A.D.2d 427 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
177 A.D.2d 608, 576 N.Y.S.2d 315, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14521, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-vickers-nyappdiv-1991.