People v. McGee
| Decision Date | 03 April 1995 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Milton McGEE, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Daniel L. Greenberg, New York City (Richard Joselson, of counsel; David M. Greenberg, on the brief), for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, Dist. Atty., Kew Gardens (Steven J. Chananie, John M. Castellano and Alexander H. Gardner, of counsel), for respondent.
Before SULLIVAN, J.P., and COPERTINO, PIZZUTO and KRAUSMAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Buchter, J.), rendered July 12, 1993, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
As the defendant concedes, his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence that he knowingly possessed five hundred milligrams or more of cocaine is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v. Okehoffurum, 201 A.D.2d 508, 607 N.Y.S.2d 695; cf., People v. Hill, 85 N.Y.2d 256, 624 N.Y.S.2d 79, 648 N.E.2d 455). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's knowledge of the weight of the cocaine beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v. Ryan, 82 N.Y.2d 497, 505-506, 605 N.Y.S.2d 235, 626 N.E.2d 51). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15[5].
Prior to jury selection the defendant signed a document which stated that he waived his "right to be present at any sidebar conference during which prospective jurors are questioned concerning their qualifications to serve as jurors". Accordingly, the defendant's contention that he was deprived of his right to be present during a sidebar conference with prospective jurors is without merit (see, People v. Mitchell, 80 N.Y.2d 519, 525, 591 N.Y.S.2d 990, 606 N.E.2d 1381).
The defendant's sentence was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Lepczynski
...N.Y.S.2d 894; People v. People, 223 A.D.2d 732, 637 N.Y.S.2d 204; People v. Thomas, 221 A.D.2d 388, 633 N.Y.S.2d 351; People v. McGee, 214 A.D.2d 587, 625 N.Y.S.2d 248). The defendant's sentence was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d The defendant's remaining c......
-
People v. Smith
...right to be present, and that he wished to give up that right (see, People v. People, 223 A.D.2d 732, 637 N.Y.S.2d 204; People v. McGee, 214 A.D.2d 587, 625 N.Y.S.2d 248). Upon resentencing the defendant, the court should not have disturbed the original sentence imposed on the conviction of......
-
People v. McGee
...619 631 N.Y.S.2d 619 86 N.Y.2d 738, 655 N.E.2d 716 People v. Milton McGee Court of Appeals of New York June 28, 1995 Titone, J. 214 A.D.2d 587, 625 N.Y.S.2d 248 App.Div. 2, Queens Denied. ...