People v. Zapata

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Zapata

235 A.D.2d 446, 652 N.Y.S.2d 537, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 139

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

DecidedJanuary 13, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 235 A.D.2d 446 (People v. Zapata) 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. Zapata, 235 A.D.2d 446, 652 N.Y.S.2d 537, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 139 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kohm, J.), rendered November 17, 1994, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by reversing the conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, vacating the sentence imposed thereon, and dismissing that count of the indictment; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

[447]*447Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, under an acting-in-concert theory (see, People v Manini, 79 NY2d 561; People v Kaplan, 76 NY2d 140), and that he was in constructive possession of a quantity of cocaine and of a weapon seized at the scene of the crimes (see, People v Pearson, 75 NY2d 1001; People v Johnson, 209 AD2d 721). Moreover, 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]).

However, as the People concede, the defendant’s conviction on the charge of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree must be vacated and the count of the indictment charging that crime must be dismissed, as it is a lesser-included offense of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (see, People v McCray, 204 AD2d 490; CPL 300.40 [3] [b]). The remaining sentences imposed were neither harsh nor excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Rosenblatt, J. P., Ritter, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kohm, J.), rendered November 17, 1994, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by reversing the conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, vacating the sentence imposed thereon, and dismissing that count of the indictment; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

[447]*447Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, under an acting-in-concert theory (see, People v Manini, 79 NY2d 561; People v Kaplan, 76 NY2d 140), and that he was in constructive possession of a quantity of cocaine and of a weapon seized at the scene of the crimes (see, People v Pearson, 75 NY2d 1001; People v Johnson, 209 AD2d 721). Moreover, 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]).

However, as the People concede, the defendant’s conviction on the charge of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree must be vacated and the count of the indictment charging that crime must be dismissed, as it is a lesser-included offense of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (see, People v McCray, 204 AD2d 490; CPL 300.40 [3] [b]). The remaining sentences imposed were neither harsh nor excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Rosenblatt, J. P., Ritter, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

235 A.D.2d 446, 652 N.Y.S.2d 537, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 139, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-zapata-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack