People v. Jackson

• Decision Date: 15 November 1989
• Citation: 548 N.Y.S.2d 362,155 A.D.2d 895
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. James JACKSON, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 362

548 N.Y.S.2d 362

155 A.D.2d 895

PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. James JACKSON, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

Nov. 15, 1989.

Richard Baumgarten, Buffalo, for appellant.

Peter L. Broderick by Thomas Brandt, Lockport, for respondent.

Before CALLAHAN, J.P., and BOOMER, PINE, LAWTON and DAVIS, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

Defendant failed to comply with CPL 270.10 and, therefore, his contention that he was denied his constitutional (U.S. Const.Amdts. 6, 14) right to a trial by a jury of his peers has not been preserved for our review (see, People v. Parks, 41 N.Y.2d 36, 40-43, 390 N.Y.S.2d 848, 359 N.E.2d 358; People v. Consolazio, 40 N.Y.2d 446, 455, 387 N.Y.S.2d 62, 354 N.E.2d 801, cert. denied sub nom. New York v. Consolazio, 433 U.S. 914, 97 S.Ct. 2986, 53 L.Ed.2d 1100). Moreover, defendant failed to specify facts upon which a statutory (Judiciary Law § 500), a due process or an equal protection violation could be premised (see, People v. Guzman, 60 N.Y.2d 403, 410, 469 N.Y.S.2d 916, 457 N.E.2d 1143, cert. denied sub nom. Guzman v. New York, 466 U.S. 951, 104 S.Ct. 2155, 80 L.Ed.2d 541).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People and giving them the benefit of all reasonable inferences, we conclude that defendant's conviction of conspiracy in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 105.10) is supported by legally sufficient evidence (see, People v. Schwimmer, 66 A.D.2d 91, 411 N.Y.S.2d 922, affd. 47 N.Y.2d 1004, 420 N.Y.S.2d 218, 394 N.E.2d 288; see also, People v. Bongarzone, 116 A.D.2d 164, 500 N.Y.S.2d 532, affd. 69 N.Y.2d 892, 515 N.Y.S.2d 227, 507 N.E.2d 1083).

Finally, defendant failed to preserve for our review his challenge to the expert testimony of the forensic chemist (see, CPL 470.05[2]. In any event, we conclude that the substantial expert testimony given by the forensic chemist provided legally sufficient evidence that the substance seized from defendant's home was cocaine (People v. Tramell, 152 A.D.2d 989, 543 N.Y.S.2d 596; People v. Dore, 129 A.D.2d 992, 514 N.Y.S.2d 157).

Judgment unanimously affirmed.