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. Anthony CONNER, appellant.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Berry, J.), rendered September 25, 2002, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress identification evidence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's conviction stems from a sale of a controlled substance to an undercover police officer in Newburgh, on March 6, 2002. At trial, the People presented testimony of the police officers and the confidential informant who had participated in the “buy and bust” operation leading to the arrest.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecutor (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 beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15[5] ).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, there was probable cause for the arrest (see People v. Badillo, 250 A.D.2d 696, 672 N.Y.S.2d 766). Further, we reject the defendant's argument that the identification procedure to which he was subjected was unlawfully suggestive. The identification of the defendant was done pursuant to a standard and planned procedure in a “buy and bust” narcotics operation by an experienced and trained undercover police officer who purchased the narcotics approximately 12 minutes beforehand (see People v. Wharton, 74 N.Y.2d 921, 923, 550 N.Y.S.2d 260, 549 N.E.2d 462; People v. Gonzalez, 174 A.D.2d 690, 571 N.Y.S.2d 545).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
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: May 02, 2005
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)