april 15, 2008 - Criminal Law Library Blog

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Lippman, P.J., Tom, Williams, Acosta, JJ. 3403 The People of the State of New York, Ind. 6310/05 Respondent, -against- Ygnacio Gonzalez, Defendant-Appellant. _________________________ Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Carl S. Kaplan of counsel), for appellant. Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York (Jared Wolkowitz of counsel), for respondent. _________________________ Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ruth Pickholz, J.), rendered March 28, 2007, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree (two counts), and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of 3½ years, unanimously affirmed. The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). The evidence established that defendant was a possessor of the cocaine the police seized from defendant’s companion and from the companion’s nearby parked car. Defendant fled and hid from the police who raided his apartment. In the apartment, the officers found drug weighing and packaging paraphernalia in open view on a living room table, along with 34
ecords of drug transactions and defendant’s identification card. The companion was found standing near a closet in defendant’s bedroom and holding 33 tin foils of cocaine whose packaging material matched the packaging found on the table. In defendant’s bedroom, the police also found a ledger recording drug transactions. From this evidence, the inference is inescapable that defendant and his companion were jointly engaged in a drug-selling enterprise, and that the drugs recovered from the companion’s hands and vehicle were possessed by both men as part of that enterprise. Accordingly, defendant could properly be convicted under both a theory of constructive possession, which the court correctly submitted to the jury, as well as under a theory of accessorial liability (see People v Hyde, 302 AD2d 101 [2003], lv denied 99 NY2d 655 [2003]; People v Jackson, 283 AD2d 201 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 902 [2001]; see also People v Bundy, 90 NY2d 918, 920 [1997]). THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT. ENTERED: APRIL <strong>15</strong>, <strong>2008</strong> _______________________ CLERK 35
Page 1 and 2: SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION F
Page 3 and 4: Lippman, P.J., Tom, Williams, Acost
Page 5 and 6: Danann Realty Corp. v Harris, 5 NY2
Page 7 and 8: Circle Rubbish launched “a force
Page 9 and 10: classes, and scheduling visits with
Page 13 and 14: was cut too deep. Defendants’ the
Page 21 and 22: witnesses and collective tailoring
Page 23 and 24: stipulated to the grounds, and the
Page 29 and 30: Mullaney v Wilbur, 421 US 684 [1975
Page 33: liability claims “share few, if a
Page 37 and 38: argument that this testimony invade
Page 39 and 40: in the 12 hours prior to plaintiff
Page 41 and 42: individual as the sole tenant in th
Page 43 and 44: opposed the motion, and pending the
Page 45 and 46: that defendant’s vehicle was regi
Page 47 and 48: arrests respectively. In fact, one
Page 49 and 50: inmate-victim who vaguely claimed t
Page 51 and 52: CATTERSON, J. (dissenting) Because
Page 53 and 54: person that’s in the cell closest
Page 55 and 56: evidence that anyone had intimidate
Page 57 and 58: him. See People v. Harte, 29 A.D.3d
Page 59 and 60: summary judgment on his Labor Law
Page 61 and 62: aise a triable issue as to construc
Page 63 and 64: specific substance of the conversat
Page 65 and 66: Gonzalez, J.P., Williams, Catterson
Page 67 and 68: Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Friedman
Page 69 and 70: interest of justice. As an alternat
Page 77 and 78: leave to amend the complaint to ass
Page 79 and 80: in the first degree. After being de
Page 83 and 84: decline to review it in the interes
Page 85 and 86:
panelist understood that he needed
Page 87 and 88:
Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Friedman
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
to be compensated for its services
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Lippman, P.J., Saxe, Nardelli, Will
Page 101 and 102:
Lippman, P.J., Tom, Mazzarelli, And
Page 103 and 104:
Tom, J.P., Andrias, Friedman, Gonza
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Gonzalez, J.P., Nardelli, Buckley,
Page 109:
The Following Orders Were Entered A
show all

april 15, 2008 - Criminal Law Library Blog

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?