People v. Windley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Windley

46 A.D.3d 326, 847 N.Y.S.2d 533

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

DecidedDecember 13, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 46 A.D.3d 326 (People v. Windley) 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. Windley, 46 A.D.3d 326, 847 N.Y.S.2d 533 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Richard Lee Price, J.), rendered February 9, 2006, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third and seventh degrees and two counts of conspiracy in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a persistent felony offender, to an aggregate term of 20 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

Based on our “analysis of competing inferences presented by the record” (People v Brown, 90 NY2d 872, 874 [1997]), we find that defendant consented to the court’s submission of written instructions to the deliberating jury, in response to its request for such instructions (see CPL 310.30).

[327]*327The court properly exercised its discretion in sentencing defendant as a persistent felony offender, and we perceive no basis to reduce the sentence. The adjudication procedure was constitutional (People v Rivera, 5 NY3d 61 [2005], cert denied 546 US 984 [2005]). Concur—Friedman, J.P., Marlow, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Richard Lee Price, J.), rendered February 9, 2006, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third and seventh degrees and two counts of conspiracy in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a persistent felony offender, to an aggregate term of 20 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

Based on our “analysis of competing inferences presented by the record” (People v Brown, 90 NY2d 872, 874 [1997]), we find that defendant consented to the court’s submission of written instructions to the deliberating jury, in response to its request for such instructions (see CPL 310.30).

[327]*327The court properly exercised its discretion in sentencing defendant as a persistent felony offender, and we perceive no basis to reduce the sentence. The adjudication procedure was constitutional (People v Rivera, 5 NY3d 61 [2005], cert denied 546 US 984 [2005]). Concur—Friedman, J.P., Marlow, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 A.D.3d 326, 847 N.Y.S.2d 533, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-windley-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack