People v. Wilkins

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Wilkins

26 A.D.3d 754, 809 N.Y.S.2d 695

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

DecidedFebruary 3, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 26 A.D.3d 754 (People v. Wilkins) 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. Wilkins, 26 A.D.3d 754, 809 N.Y.S.2d 695 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

[755]*755Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Timothy J. Drury, J.), rendered May 1, 2002. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts) and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him of two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16 [1], [12]) and one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree (§ 220.03), defendant contends that County Court erred in denying his request to charge the agency defense. We reject that contention, inasmuch as there is no view of the evidence that defendant had a relationship with the undercover officer who purchased the controlled substance (see People v Herring, 83 NY2d 780, 782-783 [1994]). Also contrary to defendant’s contention, the conviction is supported by legally sufficient evidence that defendant intentionally aided the seller of the controlled substance by supplying the seller with the drugs and facilitating the sale of the drugs to the undercover agent (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Scudder, J.P., Kehoe, Martoche, Smith and Pine, JJ.

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

[755]*755Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Timothy J. Drury, J.), rendered May 1, 2002. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts) and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him of two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16 [1], [12]) and one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree (§ 220.03), defendant contends that County Court erred in denying his request to charge the agency defense. We reject that contention, inasmuch as there is no view of the evidence that defendant had a relationship with the undercover officer who purchased the controlled substance (see People v Herring, 83 NY2d 780, 782-783 [1994]). Also contrary to defendant’s contention, the conviction is supported by legally sufficient evidence that defendant intentionally aided the seller of the controlled substance by supplying the seller with the drugs and facilitating the sale of the drugs to the undercover agent (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Scudder, J.P., Kehoe, Martoche, Smith and Pine, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 A.D.3d 754, 809 N.Y.S.2d 695, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-wilkins-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack