Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Cecil SHANNON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), rendered June 25, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to two concurrent terms of 10 to 20 years and a consecutive term of 5 to 10 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of directing that all sentences run concurrently, and otherwise affirmed.
The court properly denied defendant's request to charge criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree as a lesser included offense of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree since, based on the evidence developed at trial, the jury could not have rationally concluded that defendant possessed the drugs without intent to sell (see, People v. Hernandez 215 A.D.2d 179, 626 N.Y.S.2d 478, lv. denied 86 N.Y.2d 873, 635 N.Y.S.2d 954, 659 N.E.2d 777).
The court's Sandoval ruling was a proper exercise of discretion, notwithstanding the number of convictions and the circumstance that these constituted defendant's entire record (see, People v. Walker, 83 N.Y.2d 455, 459, 611 N.Y.S.2d 118, 633 N.E.2d 472; People v. Rivera, 227 A.D.2d 205, 642 N.Y.S.2d 636, lv. denied 88 N.Y.2d 993, 649 N.Y.S.2d 400, 672 N.E.2d 626).
The challenged portion of the prosecutor's summation, made in response to a defense argument, does not warrant reversal (see, People v. Overlee, 236 A.D.2d 133, 136, 666 N.Y.S.2d 572, lv. denied 91 N.Y.2d 976, 672 N.Y.S.2d 855, 695 N.E.2d 724).
We find the sentence excessive to the extent indicated.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: October 15, 1998
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)