People v. Robinson

• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Citation: People v. Robinson, 519 N.Y.S.2d 571, 133 A.D.2d 473 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)
• Decision Date: 28 September 1987
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Algie ROBINSON, a/k/a Algee Robinson, Appellant.

Page 571

519 N.Y.S.2d 571

133 A.D.2d 473

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Algie ROBINSON, a/k/a Algee Robinson, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Second Department.

Sept. 28, 1987.

Cristina D'Amato, White Plains, for appellant.

Carl A. Vergari, Dist. Atty., White Plains (Melinda Tell Lazare and Richard E. Weill, of counsel), for respondent.

Before MOLLEN, P.J., and MANGANO, BROWN and LAWRENCE, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Meehan, J.), rendered July 9, 1985, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

On September 7, 1984, at 9:15 P.M., Police Officer Robinson stationed himself on the rooftop of a four story apartment building for the purpose of conducting surveillance in an area known to the police for its high incidence of drug sale activity. From this vantage point the officer observed the defendant and his accomplice through binoculars under good lighting conditions as they engaged in several narcotics transactions involving the exchange of glassine envelopes for currency over a 15 to 20 minute time period.

The personal observations of the trained and experienced police officer including the exchange of glassine envelopes, the "hallmark" of a drug transaction, were sufficient to establish the existence of probable cause for the defendant's arrest (see, People v. McRay, 51 N.Y.2d 594, 435 N.Y.S.2d 679, 416 N.E.2d 1015; see also, People v. Balas, 104 A.D.2d 1039, 1040-1041, 480 N.Y.S.2d 951).

Upon the exercise of our factual review power we are satisfied that the evidence established the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15[5] ). The evidence adduced at trial and properly credited by the trial court showed that the defendant possessed cocaine with the intent to sell. The testimony of the police officer was neither incredible nor patently tailored to avoid constitutional objections.

In addition, where there has been a judgment of conviction based on legally sufficient trial evidence, the propriety of the trial court's denial of the defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground of insufficiency of the Grand Jury evidence is not reviewable (see, CPL 210.30[6]; People v. Miller, 121 A.D.2d 477, 503 N.Y.S.2d 815, lv. denied, 68 N.Y.2d 815, 507 N.Y.S.2d 1033, 499 N.E.2d 882).

Under the circumstances, the trial court properly exercised its discretion pursuant to CPL 270.50 in refusing to view the crime scene. The court was able to determine whether the police officer was in a position to observe the activities of the defendant by...