People v. Gilmore

Decision Date08 April 2010
Citation898 N.Y.S.2d 717,72 A.D.3d 1191
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Jamar F. GILMORE, Also Known as Cool, Appellant.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
898 N.Y.S.2d 717
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.

898 N.Y.S.2d 719

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.

72 A.D.3d 1192

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

898 N.Y.S.2d 720
indictment. Contrary to defendant's contention, the People established a sufficient chain of custody of the cocaine allegedly possessed by him. According to the testimony of patrolman Eric Nilsson, after defendant was taken into custody, Nilsson conducted a pat search of defendant's person, during which "a clear plastic container fell on the floor" as Nilsson shook defendant's pants. At trial, Nilsson confirmed that the cocaine offered in evidence was "the stuff that fell out of [defendant's] pant leg" during the pat search. The testimony of Lieutenant Paul Sandy also described the procedures in place at the police department for securing and handling evidence and established that those procedures were followed in this case. Sergeant Michael Nichols then testified regarding his transportation of the evidence from the police station to the State Police crime laboratory. In addition, the People presented the testimony of John Pierce, a forensic scientist with the State Police, regarding the handling and testing procedures followed once the evidence was received by the crime lab.

Taken as a whole, the testimony amply demonstrates "that

72 A.D.3d 1193
there existed 'reasonable assurances of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • People v. Desmond
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 12 Junio 2014
    ...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
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 6 Agosto 2015
    ... ... 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
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 18 Julio 2019
    ... ... 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
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 14 Marzo 2019
    ... ... 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 ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT