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, etc., respondent, v. Kevin EVANS, appellant.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lasak, J.), rendered April 5, 2005, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and unlawful possession of marihuana, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Kohm, J.), of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the People established at the suppression hearing that the police had probable cause to arrest him (see People v. Alvarez, 100 N.Y.2d 549, 763 N.Y.S.2d 788, 795 N.E.2d 13).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree beyond a reasonable doubt since, among other things, the weight of the crack cocaine recovered was more than one-eighth of an ounce (see Penal Law § 220.09[1] ). Moreover, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant's request for a jury instruction as to criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree (see Penal Law § 220.06[5] ) as a lesser-included offense of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree because there was no reasonable view of the evidence to support a finding that the weight of the crack cocaine recovered was less than one-eighth of an ounce (see People v. Van Norstrand, 85 N.Y.2d 131, 135, 623 N.Y.S.2d 767, 647 N.E.2d 1275; People v. Walker, 300 A.D.2d 417, 750 N.Y.S.2d 785). Upon the exercise of our factual review power (see CPL 470.15[5] ), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902).
As the defendant's crime was committed on September 13, 2003, he was not entitled to be sentenced under the Drug Law Reform Act (L. 2004, ch. 738, § 41 [d-1]; see People v. Utsey, 7 N.Y.3d 398, 822 N.Y.S.2d 475, 855 N.E.2d 791; People v. Savage, 29 A.D.3d 1022, 1024, 816 N.Y.S.2d 177; People v. Goode, 25 A.D.3d 723, 809 N.Y.S.2d 128).
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 27, 2007
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)