Opinion
432 KA 11-00418
05-01-2015
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Trenton A. COOK, Defendant–Appellant.
Timothy P. Donaher, Public Defender, Rochester (Martin P. McCarthy, II, of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Stephen X. O'Brien of Counsel), for Respondent.
Timothy P. Donaher, Public Defender, Rochester (Martin P. McCarthy, II, of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant.
Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Stephen X. O'Brien of Counsel), for Respondent.
PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, PERADOTTO, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM:On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon a nonjury verdict of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree (Penal Law § 220.03 ), defendant contends that the evidence is legally insufficient to establish that he possessed cocaine. We reject that contention. The evidence at trial established that two police officers observed defendant walk to the rear of a house and remove a sandwich-sized plastic bag from under the siding. One officer observed defendant remove at least one smaller bag from the larger bag, and defendant then replaced the larger bag under the siding. The officers retrieved the bag, which contained 11 smaller bags of a white substance that tested positive for cocaine. We therefore conclude that there is a “valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences” from which County Court, in this nonjury trial, could find that defendant knowingly possessed cocaine (People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 ; see People v. Sierra, 45 N.Y.2d 56, 59–60, 407 N.Y.S.2d 669, 379 N.E.2d 196 ).
Furthermore, viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crime in this nonjury trial (see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 ), we reject defendant's contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence (see generally Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d at 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 ). Issues of credibility and the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented are primarily to be determined by the factfinder (see People v. McCoy, 100 A.D.3d 1422, 1422, 953 N.Y.S.2d 788 ), and we perceive no reason to disturb the court's resolution of those issues.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.