From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Rincon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 18, 2003
302 A.D.2d 541 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2000-04427

Argued January 28, 2003.

February 18, 2003.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dunlop, J.), rendered April 5, 2000, convicting her of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Michelle Mogal of counsel), for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Jeanette Lifschitz, and Ushir Pandit of counsel), for respondent.

Before: MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, J.P., ANITA R. FLORIO, HOWARD MILLER, THOMAS A. ADAMS, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish that she knowingly possessed a controlled substance is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05; People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10; People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the trier of fact, which saw and heard the witnesses (see People v. Gaimari, 176 N.Y. 84, 94). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see People v. Garafolo, 44 A.D.2d 86, 88). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15).

The sentence imposed was not cruel and unusual (see People v. Thompson, 83 N.Y.2d 477; People v. Broadie, 37 N.Y.2d 100, cert denied 423 U.S. 950; People v. Carson, 292 A.D.2d 461).

The defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05; People v. Starling, 85 N.Y.2d 509; People v. Zambrano, 114 A.D.2d 872).

ALTMAN, J.P., FLORIO, H. MILLER and ADAMS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Rincon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 18, 2003
302 A.D.2d 541 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

People v. Rincon

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, ETC., respondent, v. DORCA RINCON, appellant

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

Date published: Feb 18, 2003

Citations

302 A.D.2d 541 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
755 N.Y.S.2d 269