From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Washington

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 15, 1999
266 A.D.2d 412 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

Argued October 12, 1999

November 15, 1999

Marianne T. Byrne, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant.

Denis Dillon, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Bruce E. Whitney and Douglas Noll of counsel), for respondent.

FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., WILLIAM C. THOMPSON, THOMAS R. SULLIVAN, WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Kowtna, J.), rendered February 27, 1998, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts), criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts), and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review, the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress videotaped recordings of the sales.

ORDERED that the judgment is modified, on the law, by vacating the convictions of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree (two counts), vacating the sentences imposed thereon, and dismissing those counts of the indictment; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's claim, trial counsel was not ineffective. Defense counsel's performance amply met the standard of meaningful representation (see, People v. Ellis, 81 N.Y.2d 854 ).

As the People correctly concede, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree is a lesser-included offense of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (see, People v. McCray, 204 A.D.2d 490, 491 ). Therefore, the defendant's convictions of two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree are vacated (see, CPL 300.40[3][b]).

The sentences imposed for the remaining convictions are not excessive (People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80 ).

The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.

SANTUCCI, J.P., THOMPSON, SULLIVAN, and FRIEDMANN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Washington

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 15, 1999
266 A.D.2d 412 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

People v. Washington

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. PATRICK C. WASHINGTON, appellant. (Ind…

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

Date published: Nov 15, 1999

Citations

266 A.D.2d 412 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
697 N.Y.S.2d 524

Citing Cases

People v. Washington

December 19, 2000. Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of…

People v. Parks

We therefore modify the judgment accordingly, and we grant a new trial on the charge of criminal possession…