Published on:

No specific request for the evidence at issue

This is an Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree for two counts, and criminal possession of a controlled substance, cocaine possession specifically, in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

A Kings County Cocaine Possession lawyer said that the defendant’s convictions arose from his sale of two vials of crack cocaine to an undercover police officer, and his possession of 24 additional vials of crack cocaine. On appeal, he contends that the People failed to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, the Court found that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt. The partial discrepancy between the markings on the vials and the description of the markings provided by the People’s witnesses merely presented a question of credibility. Resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence prevented is primarily questions to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses. Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record. Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence. No marijuana was found and no arson was charged.

Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, the Court found no violation to have occurred as a result of the prosecutor’s alleged failure to disclose the vials of crack cocaine to the defendant prior to trial. Where, as here, there was no specific request for the evidence at issue, the mere possibility that undisclosed evidence might have helped the defense or affected the outcome of the trial does not establish materiality in the constitutional sense.

The Court also reject the defendant’s contention that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. The record demonstrates that the representation the defendant received from defense counsel at trial was, on the whole, “meaningful representation”. Defense counsel’s single error in failing to request an inspection of the markings on the vials was not “sufficiently egregious and prejudicial” that it deprived the defendant of a fair trial.

The defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are:

In another Drug Crime, defendant appealed from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.
Criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree is an inclusory concurrent count that should have been dismissed pursuant to CPL 300.40(3)(b) as a lesser included offense of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree.

A Kings County Cocaine Possession attorney said that, tt trial, the defendant made a general objection to the People’s request to close the courtroom during the testimony of the undercover police officer. The court then questioned the prosecutor, establishing that the undercover officer was at the time of trial engaged in numerous, serious pending investigations. The defense counsel made no request for a hearing nor did he dispute the People’s contention that the witness’s safety would be jeopardized if his identity were made known to the public.

On this record, it cannot be said that the court erred in granting the People’s request for closure.

The defendant next contends that the People failed to prove that he sold cocaine to the undercover police officer. Essentially he contends that the police officer’s uncontradicted testimony that the defendant met the undercover officer on a street corner and led the officer into a hallway, where he sold the officer cocaine, should not have been believed by the trier of fact because the police did not recover the prerecorded “buy money” that the officer used to purchase the cocaine, although the defendant was searched some ten minutes after the sale. Viewing the evidence adduced at the trial in the light most favorable to the People, the Court found that it was legally sufficient to support the conviction. Resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented is primarily questions to be determined by the trier of fact, which saw and heard the witnesses. Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record. Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence.

The Court has reviewed the defendant’s contention that the sentence imposed was excessive and found it to be without merit.

Taking illegal substance like drugs will not do anything good in our body. Oftentimes, taking illegal substance leads a person to commit a crime once they are already under its influence. Here in Stephen Bilkis and Associates, we have our Kings County Cocaine Possession lawyers who specialize in cocaine possession cases. We also have our Kings County Drug Crime attorneys for other kinds of drugs.

Contact Information