From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Lewis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Dec 22, 2006
35 A.D.3d 1256 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)

Opinion

No. KA 04-02800.

December 22, 2006.

Appeal from a judgment of the Steuben County Court (Marianne Furfure, J.), rendered October 12, 2004. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree.

D.J. J.A. CIRANDO, ESQS., SYRACUSE (REBECCA A. CRANCE OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

ANTHONY A. LEWIS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT PRO SE.

JOHN C. TUNNEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BATH, FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.

Before: Gorski, J.P, Martoche, Smith, Green and Pine, JJ.


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

Memorandum: In each appeal, defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial on two consolidated indictments. In appeal No. 1, he was convicted of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 220.09), and in appeal No. 2 he was convicted of two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (§§ 220.16 [1]), and one count of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (§§ 220.39 [1]). We reject defendant's contention that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction in each appeal ( see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his further contention that County Court erred in permitting the undercover police officer to testify concerning the interaction between defendant and the individual from whom the officer purchased the drugs ( see CPL 470.05). In any event, even assuming, arguendo, that the court erred in admitting that testimony, we conclude that the error is harmless ( see generally People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241-242). Defendant also failed to preserve for our review his contention that the court's Sandoval ruling constituted an abuse of discretion ( see People v Barry, 34 AD3d 1258), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice ( see CPL 470.15 [a]). Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.


Summaries of

People v. Lewis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Dec 22, 2006
35 A.D.3d 1256 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
Case details for

People v. Lewis

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ANTHONY A. LEWIS…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Dec 22, 2006

Citations

35 A.D.3d 1256 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 9873
825 N.Y.S.2d 413

Citing Cases

People v. Lewis

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