People v. Lane
| Decision Date | 25 November 1991 |
| Citation | 177 A.D.2d 713,577 N.Y.S.2d 88 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Bernard Frankie LANE, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Philip L. Weinstein, New York City (Linda Poust, of counsel), for appellant.
Charles J. Hynes, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Jay M. Cohen, James B. Duggan, and Lloyd A. Sandy, of counsel), for respondent.
Before KUNZEMAN, J.P., and SULLIVAN, BALLETTA and COPERTINO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Beldock, J.) rendered September 20, 1989, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant was arrested in a so-called "buy and bust" operation wherein an undercover officer purchased two vials of crack cocaine through a peephole door. Five minutes later, the backup team broke through the door and found the defendant alone in the apartment with 16 additional vials of crack cocaine. The defendant was convicted of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (possession with intent to sell) in connection with the two vials sold to the officer but was acquitted of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. Contrary to the defendant's contention on appeal, the verdict was not repugnant. Inasmuch as an actual sale is not a necessary element of the possession charge, the jury's acquittal of the defendant on the sale charge does not render infirm his conviction on the possession count (see People v. Tucker, 55 N.Y.2d 1, 447 N.Y.S.2d 132, 431 N.E.2d 617; People v. Martinez, 165 A.D.2d 788, 564 N.Y.S.2d 58; People v. Washington, 155 A.D.2d 635, 548 N.Y.S.2d 49). Moreover, the acquittal could reasonably have been based upon a conclusion by the jury that another individual was present in the apartment at the time of the sale or the jury simply could have been exercising mercy (see, People v. Tucker, supra, 55 N.Y.2d at 7, 447 N.Y.S.2d 132, 431 N.E.2d 617).
The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Cruz
...People v. Tucker, 55 N.Y.2d 1, 447 N.Y.S.2d 132, 431 N.E.2d 617; People v. Patton, 187 A.D.2d 538, 589 N.Y.S.2d 599; People v. Lane, 177 A.D.2d 713, 577 N.Y.S.2d 88). ...
-
People v. Dunbar
...; People v. Miller, 282 A.D.2d 550, 551, 722 N.Y.S.2d 751 ; People v. Vaughn, 242 A.D.2d 458, 458, 662 N.Y.S.2d 113 ; People v. Lane, 177 A.D.2d 713, 713, 577 N.Y.S.2d 88 ).Contrary to the defendant's contention, he was properly sentenced as a second felony drug offender previously convicte......
-
People v. Kramer
...300 A.D.2d 824, 824–825, 752 N.Y.S.2d 437 [2002],lv. denied99 N.Y.2d 617, 757 N.Y.S.2d 828, 787 N.E.2d 1174 [2003];see People v. Lane, 177 A.D.2d 713, 713, 577 N.Y.S.2d 88 [1991],lv. denied79 N.Y.2d 921, 582 N.Y.S.2d 81, 590 N.E.2d 1209 [1992] ). Defendant's argument to the contrary is pred......
- People v. Langhorne