People v. Easley
| Citation | 124 A.D.3d 1284,1 N.Y.S.3d 640 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Grant A. EASLEY, Defendant–Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 02 January 2015 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
124 A.D.3d 1284
1 N.Y.S.3d 640
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Grant A. EASLEY, Defendant–Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Jan. 2, 2015.
The Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc., Buffalo (Deborah K. Jessey of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant.
Frank A. Sedita, III, District Attorney, Buffalo (Nicholas T. Texido of Counsel), for Respondent.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CENTRA, FAHEY, LINDLEY AND WHALEN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:
On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon a nonjury verdict of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree ( Penal Law § 220.09[1] ), defendant contends that there was no probable cause to compel his pre-indictment DNA buccal swab (see generally Matter of Abe A., 56 N.Y.2d 288, 291, 452 N.Y.S.2d 6, 437 N.E.2d 265 ; People v. Smith, 95 A.D.3d 21, 24, 940 N.Y.S.2d 373 ). Defendant failed to preserve his contention for our review inasmuch as he did not move to suppress the DNA evidence obtained from the buccal swab (see People v. Brown, 92 A.D.3d 1216, 1216, 937 N.Y.S.2d 803, lv. denied 18 N.Y.3d 992, 945 N.Y.S.2d 647, 968 N.E.2d 1003 ; People v. Clark, 15 A.D.3d 864, 865, 788 N.Y.S.2d 800, lv. denied 4 N.Y.3d 885, 798 N.Y.S.2d 730, 831 N.E.2d 975 ), and we decline to exercise our power to review defendant's contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15[6][a] ).
We reject defendant's further contention that he did not have actual or constructive possession of the drugs and thus that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see generally People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932 ), we conclude that there is a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences that could lead the trier of fact to conclude that defendant constructively
possessed the subject drugs (see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Patterson
...). We further conclude that all of the remaining challenged remarks were fair comment on the evidence (see People v. Easley, 124 A.D.3d 1284, 1285, 1 N.Y.S.3d 640 [4th Dept. 2015], lv denied 25 N.Y.3d 1200, 16 N.Y.S.3d 523, 37 N.E.3d 1166 [2015] ). We agree with defendant, however, that the......
-
People v. Perkins
...summation "were ‘either a fair response to defense counsel's summation or fair comment on the evidence’ " ( People v. Easley , 124 A.D.3d 1284, 1285, 1 N.Y.S.3d 640 [4th Dept. 2015], lv denied 25 N.Y.3d 1200, 16 N.Y.S.3d 523, 37 N.E.3d 1166 [2015] ; see People v. Doty , 161 A.D.3d 1511, 151......
- People v. Carver
-
People v. Lostumbo
...alleged instances at trial (see People v. Simmons, 133 A.D.3d 1227, 1228, 18 N.Y.S.3d 808 [4th Dept. 2015] ; People v. Easley, 124 A.D.3d 1284, 1285, 1 N.Y.S.3d 640 [4th Dept. 2015], lv denied 25 N.Y.3d 1200, 16 N.Y.S.3d 523, 37 N.E.3d 1166 [2015] ). We decline to exercise our power to revi......