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. Herbert CEPHAS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered May 16, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a persistent felony offender, to a term of 15 years to life, and order, same court and Justice, entered on or about September 10, 2003, which denied defendant's CPL 440.10 motion to vacate the judgment of conviction, unanimously affirmed.
The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis for disturbing the jury's determinations concerning credibility, including its evaluation of alleged inconsistencies in testimony (see People v. Gaimari, 176 N.Y. 84, 94, 68 N.E. 112 [1903] ).
The court properly denied defendant's CPL 440.10 motion without a hearing, since his moving papers failed to substantiate his claim that the judgment was procured by the knowing use by the prosecutor of false material testimony (CPL 440.10[1][c] ). Rather than “false” testimony, defendant established, at most a minor discrepancy between the observing officer's testimony at trial and at a subsequent proceeding in this case (see People v. Stern, 226 A.D.2d 238, 240, 641 N.Y.S.2d 248 [1996], lv. denied 88 N.Y.2d 969, 647 N.Y.S.2d 723, 670 N.E.2d 1355 [1996] ).
The record establishes that defendant received effective assistance of counsel under the state and federal standards (see People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 713-714, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584 [1998]; see also Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 [1984] ). Contrary to defendant's arguments, we conclude that his attorney skillfully cross-examined the People's witnesses and made a thorough summation.
The court properly exercised its discretion in sentencing defendant as a persistent felony offender.
Defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them.
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: February 21, 2006
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)