PEOPLE v. HUGHES

Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Ernesto HUGHES, Appellant.

Decided: October 26, 1998

ROSENBLATT, J.P., COPERTINO, SULLIVAN and ALTMAN, JJ. M. Sue Wycoff, New York (Daniel Hsiung of counsel), for Appellant. Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn (Roseann B. MacKechnie, Jane Meyers, and Amy Meyer of counsel), for Respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rivera, J.), rendered April 2, 1996, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his knowledge of the weight of the cocaine he possessed is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05[2];  People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 629 N.Y.S.2d 173, 652 N.E.2d 919).   In any event, 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 beyond a reasonable doubt.   The defendant's knowledge of the weight of the cocaine can be inferred from the quantity recovered, the packaging of the cocaine, the price paid for the drugs, and the circumstances of the sale (see, People v. Sanchez, 86 N.Y.2d 27, 629 N.Y.S.2d 179, 652 N.E.2d 925;  People v. Ryan, 82 N.Y.2d 497, 605 N.Y.S.2d 235, 626 N.E.2d 51).   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] ).

The sentence imposed for the defendant's conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Copied to clipboard