From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Davis [2d Dept 2000

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 3, 2000
(N.Y. App. Div. Feb. 3, 2000)

Opinion

Submitted December 9, 1999

February 3, 2000

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lipp, J.), rendered March 5, 1997, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and unlawful possession of marihuana, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ethel P. Ross, Rye, N.Y., for appellant.

Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Roseann B. MacKechnie and Sholom J. Twersky of counsel), for respondent.

CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, J.P., WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, ANITA R. FLORIO, HOWARD MILLER, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court improperly permitted the People to amend the bill of particulars to change the street address of the crime is unpreserved for appellate review as he failed to raise this contention at the Supreme Court (see, CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Ruiz, 211 A.D.2d 829, 830 ). In any event, this contention is without merit. Since the amendment did not change the theory of the prosecution or prejudice the defendant, and since there was no evidence that the prosecutor acted in bad faith in failing to correct the mistaken address earlier, the Supreme Court did not err in allowing the amendment (see, People v. Jarvis, 215 A.D.2d 588 ; People v. Parker, 186 A.D.2d 157 ).

The defendant's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Bynum, 70 N.Y.2d 858, 859 ). 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, 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[5]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80 ).

The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05[2]) or without merit.

O'BRIEN, J.P., FRIEDMANN, FLORIO, and H. MILLER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Davis [2d Dept 2000

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 3, 2000
(N.Y. App. Div. Feb. 3, 2000)
Case details for

People v. Davis [2d Dept 2000

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. ANTHONY J. DAVIS, appellant. (Ind. No…

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

Date published: Feb 3, 2000

Citations

(N.Y. App. Div. Feb. 3, 2000)