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. Julio Cruz, Defendant–Appellant.
_
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Maxwell Wiley, J.), rendered July 8, 2009, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (three counts), criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, and criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree (four counts), and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 16 years, unanimously affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348–349 [2007] ). The evidence amply established that defendant was a participant in the drug sale. In addition to evidence plainly supporting the inference that defendant acted as a lookout during the sale, the police investigation established that defendant was part of an ongoing drug-trafficking operation, and that his role included, among other things, storing drugs in his apartment. In sum, “[d]efendant's entire course of conduct and interactions with his codefendants supported the conclusion that he was a participant in a drug operation, and that he assisted the others by acting as a lookout” (People v. Eduardo, 44 AD3d 371, 372 [1st Dept 2007], affd 11 NY3d 484 [2008] ).
For the reasons stated in People v. Tate (_ AD3d _ [1st Dept 2015] [decided simultaneously herewith] ), we find that defendant failed to preserve his claim that the court was required to provide the public with notice of an impending hearing on the closure of the courtroom during an undercover officer's testimony, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice, and we also find that defendant lacks standing to assert such a claim.
We have considered and rejected defendant's remaining claims concerning closure of the courtroom (see generally Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 [1984]; People v. Ramos, 90 N.Y.2d 490, 498–499, cert denied sub nom. Ayala v. New York, 522 U.S. 1002 [1997] ).
_
CLERK
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 1569 1
Decided: July 09, 2015
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
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)