People v. Parks

• Citation: 961 N.Y.S.2d 161,2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 01914,104 A.D.3d 561
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Akil PARKS, Defendant–Appellant.
• Decision Date: 21 March 2013
• Court: New York Supreme Court Appellate Division

104 A.D.3d 561

961 N.Y.S.2d 161

2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 01914

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,

v.Akil PARKS, Defendant–Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

March 21, 2013.

Richard M. Greenberg, Office of the Appellate Defender, New York (Rosemary Herbert of counsel), and Alston & Bird LLP, New York (Carolyn O'Leary of counsel), for appellant.

Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Sheila O'Shea of counsel), for respondent.

SWEENY, J.P., ACOSTA, ROMÁN, FEINMAN, CLARK, JJ.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Wayne M. Ozzi, J.), rendered August 24, 2010, as amended September 2, 2010, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third and fifth degrees, criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree, unlawfully dealing with a child in the first degree, criminal possession of marijuana in the fifth degree and unlawful possession of marijuana, and sentencing him, as a second felony drug offenderwhose prior felony conviction was a violent felony, to an aggregate term of seven years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348–349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 [2007] ). There is no basis for disturbing the jury's credibility determinations, including its evaluation of alleged inconsistencies in testimony. The police testimony leads to the inescapable conclusion that defendant threw a bag out of a window during the execution of a search warrant, and that this was the same bag that was recovered from a roof below the window and found to contain drugs.

The court properly delegated to a court officer the ministerial function of bringing the jury an amended verdict sheet containing a one-word correction in the name of a charged crime. The deliberating jury sent a note that simply called the court's attention to the fact that the verdict sheet incorrectly referred to criminal possession of marijuana in the fourth degree, rather than fifth degree. This was not even an inquiry, since the jury was not requesting any information. Even if it could be viewed as an inquiry, it was not a substantive inquiry requiring a response in open court under CPL 310.30. Instead, this note only necessitated the ministerial action of sending a corrected verdict sheet into the jury room, and there was no ambiguity in the note requiring the court to address the jury ...