People v. Gilmore
Decision Date | 08 April 2010 |
Citation | 898 N.Y.S.2d 717,72 A.D.3d 1191 |
Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Jamar F. GILMORE, Also Known as Cool, Appellant. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
72 A.D.3d 1191
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Jamar F. GILMORE, Also Known as Cool, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
April 8, 2010.
Jamar F. Gilmore, Pine City, appellant pro se.
Mark D. Suben, District Attorney, Cortland (Kevin A. Jones of counsel), for respondent.
Before: MERCURE, J.P., SPAIN, ROSE, LAHTINEN and STEIN, JJ.
STEIN, J.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Cortland County (Campbell, J.), rendered November 17, 2006, upon two verdicts convicting defendant of the crimes of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts).
Defendant was indicted on one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree (hereinafter the first indictment) based upon his possession of cocaine on December 2, 2005. He was subsequently indicted on two counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (hereinafter the second indictment) arising out of his sale of cocaine on January 16, 2006. Defendant was convicted of all charges after two separate jury trials and he now appeals.1 Finding no merit to defendant's various arguments on appeal, we affirm.
Initially, we find that County Court properly denied defendant's motion for a Mapp/Dunaway hearing under the first indictment as the motion failed to set forth any sworn allegations of fact supporting the grounds for the application ( see CPL 710.60[1]; People v. Lopez, 5 N.Y.3d 753, 754, 801 N.Y.S.2d 245, 834 N.E.2d 1255 [2005]; People v. Mendoza, 82 N.Y.2d 415, 422, 604 N.Y.S.2d 922, 624 N.E.2d 1017 [1993] ).
Nor do we find error in County Court's admission of the cocaine into evidence in the trial pertaining to the first
Taken as a whole, the testimony amply demonstrates "that
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Desmond
...to deny the request for a Dunaway hearing ( see People v. Carota, 93 A.D.3d 1072, 1076, 941 N.Y.S.2d 302 [2012];People v. Gilmore, 72 A.D.3d 1191, 1192, 898 N.Y.S.2d 717 [2010];People v. Jenkins, 64 A.D.3d 993, 994, 882 N.Y.S.2d 583 [2009];compare People v. Bryant, 8 N.Y.3d at 534, 838 N.Y.......
-
People v. Carter
... ... One acceptable method of authenticating fungible items, such as bags containing white powder, is to establish a chain of custody (see 131 A.D.3d 723People v. Julian, 41 N.Y.2d at 343, 392 N.Y.S.2d 610, 360 N.E.2d 1310 ; People v. Danford, 88 A.D.3d at 1067, 931 N.Y.S.2d 137 ; People v. Gilmore, 72 A.D.3d 1191, 11921193, 898 N.Y.S.2d 717 [2010] ).Here, the CI testified that, as soon as she exited the hotel after each controlled buy, she turned the substance purchased over to Clark; Clark, in turn, testified that he field tested the relevant substances and placed them in sealed, signed and ... ...
-
People v. Seecoomar, 110244
... ... Durfey, 170 A.D.3d 1331, 1336, 95 N.Y.S.3d 473 [2019], quoting People v. Gilmore, 72 A.D.3d 1191, 1192, 898 N.Y.S.2d 717 [2010] ; see People v. Mendoza, 82 N.Y.2d 415, 422, 604 N.Y.S.2d 922, 624 N.E.2d 1017 [1993] ). The same can be said of defendant's claim that he should have been granted a Darden hearing, as his motion papers did not set forth a factual basis to warrant such ... ...
-
People v. Durfey
... ... Accordingly, 95 N.Y.S.3d 480County Court properly denied defendant's motion for a Mapp hearing, as the motion "failed to set forth any sworn allegations of fact supporting the grounds for the application" ( People v. Gilmore, 72 A.D.3d 1191, 1192, 898 N.Y.S.2d 717 [2010] ; see CPL 710.60[3][b] ; People v. Mendoza, 82 N.Y.2d 415, 422, 604 N.Y.S.2d 922, 624 N.E.2d 1017 [1993] ). We are also unpersuaded by defendant's arguments that he did not receive the effective assistance of counsel. "For counsel 170 A.D.3d 1337to be ... ...