People v. McCollum
| Decision Date | 24 October 2019 |
| Docket Number | 109125 |
| Citation | 112 N.Y.S.3d 298,176 A.D.3d 1402 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Daniel MCCOLLUM, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
176 A.D.3d 1402
112 N.Y.S.3d 298
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Daniel MCCOLLUM, Appellant.
109125
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Decided and Entered: October 24, 2019
Calendar Date: September 6, 2019
Marshall Nadan, Kingston, for appellant.
D. Holley Carnright, District Attorney, Kingston (Joan Gudesblatt Lamb of counsel), for respondent.
Before: Garry, P.J., Egan Jr., Lynch and Pritzker, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Lynch, J.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Williams, J.), rendered December 20, 2016, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree and criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree.
On July 7, 2015, the State Police executed a warrant to search room 67 of the Atlas Motel in the Town of Lloyd, Ulster County. Upon entry, the police found defendant present with one other person.
During the ensuing search, the police found a prescription bottle – in the name of a person not present – containing 58 blue 30–milligram oxycodone pills, a digital scale and a glass plate – both with white and blue residue on them – thumb-sized orange plastic bags and, on the plate, a state benefit card in defendant's name. Thereafter, defendant was charged in a three-count indictment with criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree and criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree. He was tried in absentia, convicted as charged and sentenced to an aggregate prison term of seven years, with two years of postrelease supervision. Defendant appeals.
We affirm. Defendant maintains that the small quantity of pills involved is legally insufficient to support his conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance with intent to
sell. He also maintains that a digital scale is not used for weighing pills, a fact invalidating the paraphernalia charge. Because defendant made only a general objection at the close of the proof, he failed to preserve any...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Agan
...weight of the evidence challenge, we ensure that the proof submitted supports the elements of the crimes" ( People v. McCollum, 176 A.D.3d 1402, 1402, 112 N.Y.S.3d 298 [2019] [citations omitted]; see People v. Baber, 182 A.D.3d at 795, 123 N.Y.S.3d 222 ). As relevant here, "[a] person is gu......
-
People v. Baber
...evidence requires us to determine whether each element of the crimes was proven beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v. McCollum, 176 A.D.3d 1402, 1403, 112 N.Y.S.3d 298 [2019] ; People v. Secor, 162 A.D.3d 1411, 1412, 80 N.Y.S.3d 511 [2018], lv denied 32 N.Y.3d 941, 84 N.Y.S.3d 868, 109 N......
-
People v. Santana
...v. Madsen, 168 A.D.3d 1134, 1135, 90 N.Y.S.3d 396 [2019] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see People v. McCollum, 176 A.D.3d 1402, 1403, 112 N.Y.S.3d 298 [2019] ). "When undertaking a weight of the evidence review, we must first determine whether, based on all the credible ......
-
People v. Meadows, 110483
...his legal sufficiency challenge by making only a general objection at the close of the People's proof (see People v. McCollum, 176 A.D.3d 1402, 1403, 112 N.Y.S.3d 298 [2019] ). "Nevertheless, in reviewing defendant's argument that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, this Cour......