Opinion
KA 03-01051.
Decided April 30, 2004.
Appeal from a judgment of the Steuben County Court (Joseph W. Latham, J.), rendered October 15, 1999. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree.
DAVID M. PARKS, ITHACA, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
LARRY J. COPELAND, JR., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT PRO SE.
JOHN C. TUNNEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BATH, FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.
Before: PRESENT: PIGOTT, JR., P.J., PINE, SCUDDER, GORSKI, AND HAYES, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him after a jury trial of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16). Contrary to defendant's contention, the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v. Jackson, 306 A.D.2d 910, 911, lv denied 100 N.Y.2d 595, 1 N.Y.3d 540; People v. Williams, 291 A.D.2d 897, 898, lv denied 97 N.Y.2d 763; see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495). We further reject the contention in defendant's pro se supplemental brief that County Court failed to instruct the jury in accordance with CPL 260.30(2) and 270.40. The sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe.