Hyperlawhypertext legal database People v. Maddox 272 A.D.2d 884

← Cases

People v. Maddox

272 A.D.2d 884 Court N.Y. App. Div. Decision date 2000-05-10 English

Contents

Majority

p. 884
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Lawrence Maddox, Appellant.
[708 NYS2d 769]

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant was convicted following a jury trial of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16 [1]) arising out of the execution of a search warrant at an apartment in the City of Geneva. There is no merit to the contention of defendant that he was deprived of a fair trial by the admission of evidence of uncharged crimes. It is well established that evidence of uncharged crimes may be admitted to establish the intent element of a crime (see, People v Alvino, 71 NY2d 233 , 245; People v Molineux, 168 NY 264 , 293-294). Here, evidence of uncharged drug transactions was properly admitted as proof

p. 885
that defendant possessed the cocaine found inside the apartment with the intent to sell it (see, People v Alvino, supra, at 245-246 ; People v Villanueva, 269 AD2d 473 ; People v Maddox, 256 AD2d 1066 , 1067). The probative value of such evidence far exceeded its potential for prejudice (see, People v Alvino, supra, at 242 ), and any prejudice to defendant was minimized by County Court’s limiting instructions (see, People v Maddox, supra, at 1067 ; People v Rodriguez, 224 AD2d 346 , lv denied 88 NY2d 969 ). In addition, the testimony that defendant threatened a woman who was expected to testify against him, although evidence of a prior bad act, was properly admitted on the issue of consciousness of guilt (see, People v Pugh, 236 AD2d 810 , 812, lv denied 89 NY2d 1099 ; People v Reyes, 162 AD2d 357 , lv denied 76 NY2d 896 ).

Defendant was not denied due process of law by any delay in the prosecution of the appeal because he failed to demonstrate any prejudice as a result of such delay (see, People v Cousart, 58 NY2d 62 , 68; People v Nelli, 259 AD2d 1046 , lv denied 93 NY2d 927 ; People v Foley, 203 AD2d 952 , lv denied 83 NY2d 967 ).

The fact that defendant was sentenced to a term of incarceration greater than that offered as part of a pretrial plea offer does not render the sentence unduly harsh (see, People v Rogers, 245 AD2d 1041 , 1041-1042), nor is the sentence otherwise unduly harsh or severe.

We further conclude that defendant received effective assistance of counsel (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137 , 147). The contention that defendant was deprived of a fair trial by the prosecutor’s objections and prejudicial comments has not been preserved for our review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, we conclude that the prosecutor’s conduct did not deprive defendant of a fair trial (see, People v Greening, 254 AD2d 739 , 740, lv denied 92 NY2d 1032 ). (Appeal from Judgment of Ontario County Court, Harvey, J. — Criminal Possession Controlled Substance, 3rd Degree.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Green, Wisner and Scudder, JJ.

Cases cited