People v. Miles

• Decision Date: 09 April 2009
• Docket Number: 101481.
• Citation: People v. Miles, 61 A.D.3d 1118, 876 N.Y.S.2d 551, 2009 NY Slip Op 2688 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
• Parties: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JAMES MILES, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

61 A.D.3d 1118

876 N.Y.S.2d 551

2009 NY Slip Op 02688

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JAMES MILES, Appellant.

101481.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department.

Decided April 9, 2009.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County (Herrick, J.), rendered October 20, 2007, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

KAVANAGH, J.

On October 5, 2006, Albany Police Detective Richard Gould and State Police Investigator Carla DiRienzo, as part of a drug investigation they were conducting in the City of Albany, employed a paid informant who made a controlled buy of cocaine from defendant. After completing their investigation, defendant was arrested and charged by indictment with criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. After a trial, he was convicted as charged and was sentenced to seven years in prison, to be followed by two years of postrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals arguing that his conviction is not supported by the weight of the credible evidence and that the sentence imposed was harsh and excessive.

Specifically, defendant claims that the informant was not thoroughly searched—or controlled by the police prior to being sent out on the investigation—and, as a result, the informant could have had cocaine on his person prior to having any contact with defendant. In that regard, Gould testified—and the informant confirmed—that Gould searched the informant twice that day, the second search being performed shortly before the informant entered defendant's residence and purchased the cocaine. In addition to testifying that no contraband was found on the informant during either search, Gould also testified that the informant was under the constant surveillance of the police from the time he left the police vehicle to when he entered defendant's residence and, again, upon leaving the residence and returning to their vehicle. In addition, the informant was wearing an electronic transmitter that allowed the police to monitor and record the conversation that he had with defendant before and at the time of the sale. A tape recording of these conversations and, in particular, the negotiations between the informant and defendant was admitted into evidence and played for the jury.

Defendant also argues that the informant's testimony and that of Gould was simply not believable and should have been...