PEOPLE v. PATTERSON (2004)

 Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him after a jury trial of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16[1] ) and criminal possession of marihuana in the fourth degree (§ 221.15).   Defendant contends that the evidence is legally insufficient to establish his constructive possession of the cocaine found in a shirt in the bedroom of his girlfriend's residence and that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence.   We reject that contention.   The police witnesses testified that they observed defendant at his girlfriend's residence on several occasions and that, upon executing a search warrant for the residence, they found letters and other mail addressed to defendant, as well as men's clothing.   Although the trial testimony of defendant's girlfriend was inconsistent in some respects, it was consistent to the extent that she testified that defendant stayed at her residence on occasion and that he kept some clothing there, including the shirt in which the cocaine was found.   The evidence is thus legally sufficient to establish defendant's constructive possession of the cocaine (see People v. Nunziata, 10 A.D.3d 695, 696, 782 N.Y.S.2d 97;  People v. Justiniano, 216 A.D.2d 953, 629 N.Y.S.2d 709, lv. denied 86 N.Y.2d 873, 635 N.Y.S.2d 955, 659 N.E.2d 778), and the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672).

 Contrary to defendant's further contention, County Court's Ventimiglia ruling does not constitute an abuse of discretion.   The evidence that defendant sold drugs at his girlfriend's residence four days before the execution of the search warrant was relevant with respect to the issue of his intent to sell (see People v. Perez, 298 A.D.2d 935, 936, 747 N.Y.S.2d 654, lv. denied 99 N.Y.2d 562, 754 N.Y.S.2d 215, 784 N.E.2d 88;  see also People v. Carson, 4 A.D.3d 805, 805-806, 771 N.Y.S.2d 775, lv. denied 2 N.Y.3d 797, 781 N.Y.S.2d 296, 814 N.E.2d 468;  People v. Maddox, 256 A.D.2d 1066, 1067, 685 N.Y.S.2d 149).   The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: