Hyperlawhypertext legal database People v. Charriez 174 A.D.2d 380

← Cases

People v. Charriez

174 A.D.2d 380 Court N.Y. App. Div. Decision date 1991-06-11 English

Contents

Majority

p. 380
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jose Charriez, Appellant.

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Haft, J.), rendered February 21, 1990, convicting defendant after a jury trial of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him as a second felony offender to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

This prosecution arose out of a "buy and bust” operation in

p. 381
which an undercover officer purchased two glassine bags of heroin, with a specific logo, from co-defendant for $20 in buy bills. The undercover officer contacted the backup unit, and the arresting officer, moments later, saw the co-defendant hand money to defendant. At that moment, focusing on the co-defendant, the arresting officer directed the parties not to move. When defendant saw the officer, he dropped two glassine bags from his hand. Ten more glassine bags of heroin, the $20 in buy money, and a bag of cocaine were recovered from defendant himself.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, and giving due deference to the jury’s findings of credibility (People v Malizia, 62 NY2d 755 , cert denied 469 US 932 ) defendant’s guilt was proved beyond a reasonable doubt by overwhelming evidence under the standards set forth in People v Bleakley ( 69 NY2d 490 , 495). The circumstances of this case, including the quantity of drugs recovered from defendant, the proximity in time and place between the original sale, the apprehension of the co-defendant, and the arresting officer’s observations, supported the inference that defendant possessed the contraband with intent to sell (People v Alvino, 71 NY2d 233 ).

The contraband abandoned by defendant was properly seized (Horton v California, 496 US 128 , 110 S Ct 2301 ). In any event, this evidence would have supported stopping defendant when co-defendant was detained (see, People v Leung, 68 NY2d 734 ). We have examined defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be meritless. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Kupferman, Ross, Asch and Kassal, JJ.

Cases cited