People v. Gunney
| Decision Date | 30 December 2004 |
| Docket Number | 14021.,13572.,15280. |
| Citation | 2004 NY Slip Op 09726,13 A.D.3d 980,787 N.Y.S.2d 483 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ROBERT GUNNEY, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
A police officer stationed himself in a vacant apartment and watched through binoculars for potential drug sales which were reportedly occurring in that neighborhood. He observed defendant, whom he knew, meet and converse with another individual, Karl Gamble. After their brief conversation, Gamble began counting out money while defendant disappeared into an alleyway for 20 to 30 seconds. While in the alleyway, defendant appeared to be looking for something in the area of some electric meter boxes. Defendant emerged from the alleyway with his hands clenched into fists and sat down beside Gamble. The officer then observed Gamble give defendant the money he had counted out, whereupon defendant placed his clenched hand behind his back and returned his open hand in front of him. Gamble then reached behind defendant and appeared to retrieve something, although the officer could not positively identify what was retrieved. Gamble stood up and placed the item in his left pants pocket, then proceeded into a nearby store. Defendant walked in the other direction a short distance before retracing his steps and entering the same store.
The officer radioed his partner to apprehend Gamble. As Gamble exited the store, the partner and other officers stopped him and questioned him. When Gamble pulled out his pockets to show that he had nothing incriminating, the officers saw a piece of crack cocaine wrapped in plastic fall to the ground near Gamble's feet. After Gamble was arrested, the officers searched for defendant in the store, but he had exited through a back stockroom door. Later that evening, defendant was arrested. A jury convicted him of the sole count, criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. Supreme Court sentenced him to 12½ to 25 years imprisonment, then denied his two CPL article 440 motions. Defendant appeals from the judgment of conviction and the order denying his second motion.
The evidence was legally sufficient. A "valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences" (People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]) could rationally lead jurors to believe that defendant's conversation with Gamble concerned a sale of drugs, defendant entered the alleyway for the purpose of obtaining drugs for that sale, defendant held the drugs in his clenched fist until he received the money from Gamble as payment for those drugs, he then put the drugs behind him for Gamble to pick up, Gamble placed the drugs in his left pocket, the police found those drugs after Gamble dropped them from his left pocket and when defendant observed the police, he fled out the back door of the store.
As a different verdict would not have been unreasonable, we must weigh the conflicting testimony and the relative strength of permissible inferences from that testimony to determine whether the verdict is supported by the weight of the evidence (see id. at 495). Conflicting with the above version of events which was supported by testimony from several police officers, Gamble testified that he did not know defendant, he did not converse with him or have any interaction with him that day, he did not possess drugs that day and the drugs the police found on the ground did not come from him or his pocket. On cross-examination, Gamble admitted that he pleaded guilty to drug possession as a result of his arrest related to this incident. Defendant testified that the money he possessed at the time of his arrest was from a check he cashed earlier that day, he did not know Gamble, he conversed with a friend on the stoop that day but it was not Gamble, he went into the alleyway during that conversation because he needed to urinate, he did not possess or sell any drugs that day and he frequently left the store through the back door as a shortcut. While this conflicting testimony could support a finding of not guilty, giving deference to the jurors' credibility determinations due to their ability to observe the witnesses (see id. at 495), the verdict was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Every
...as to compromise defendant's right to a fair trial" and did not constitute ineffective assistance ( 146 A.D.3d 1166People v. Gunney, 13 A.D.3d 980, 983, 787 N.Y.S.2d 483 [2004], lv. denied 5 N.Y.3d 789, 801 N.Y.S.2d 810, 835 N.E.2d 670 [2005] ; accord People v. Fauntleroy, 108 A.D.3d 885, 8......
-
People v. Taylor, 108253
...crime charged, "there was not a reasonable likelihood that the error alone changed the outcome of the case" ( People v. Gunney, 13 A.D.3d 980, 983, 787 N.Y.S.2d 483 [2004], lv denied 5 N.Y.3d 789, 801 N.Y.S.2d 810, 835 N.E.2d 670 [2005] ; see People v. Blake, 24 N.Y.3d 78, 81, 996 N.Y.S.2d ......
-
People v. Stover
...146 A.D.3d 1157, 1165–1166, 46 N.Y.S.3d 695 [2017], affd 29 N.Y.3d 1103, 61 N.Y.S.3d 194, 83 N.E.3d 202 [2017], quoting People v. Gunney, 13 A.D.3d 980, 983, 787 N.Y.S.2d 483 [2004], lv denied 5 N.Y.3d 789, 801 N.Y.S.2d 810, 835 N.E.2d 670 [2005] ). Moreover, because a review of the record ......
-
People v. Griffin
...ineffective representation as it was not so serious as to compromise defendant's right to a fair trial" ( People v. Gunney , 13 A.D.3d 980, 983, 787 N.Y.S.2d 483 [3d Dept. 2004], lv denied 5 N.Y.3d 789, 801 N.Y.S.2d 810, 835 N.E.2d 670 [2005] ; see Geddes , 49 A.D.3d at 1257, 856 N.Y.S.2d 3......