People v. Valdez, 14095.

• Citation: 773 N.Y.S.2d 144,2004 NY Slip Op 01269,4 A.D.3d 679
• Decision Date: 26 February 2004
• Docket Number: 14095.
• Parties: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JULIO VALDEZ, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

4 A.D.3d 679

773 N.Y.S.2d 144

2004 NY Slip Op 01269

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JULIO VALDEZ, Appellant.

14095.

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

February 26, 2004.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County (Herrick, J.), rendered May 1, 2002, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

ROSE, J.

Defendant's conviction for criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree arises from a controlled buy conducted by officers of the Albany County Sheriff's Department with the aid of a confidential informant who knew defendant. The officers outfitted the informant with a body wire, gave him $50 to purchase two bags of heroin from defendant and took him to a location near defendant's apartment. Monitoring the body wire transmissions after the informant entered the apartment, the officers heard an exchange in Spanish between the informant and another person relating to the sale of heroin. The officers, however, did not observe the sale. The informant then returned to the officers with two bags of heroin and reported that he had purchased them from defendant. Defendant, who was known to one of the officers, was arrested 23 days later. Following a jury trial, defendant was found guilty of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and later sentenced as a second felony offender to a term of 10 to 20 years in prison. Defendant appeals, arguing that the trial evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction and the sentence was harsh and excessive.

At trial, the informant testified that he had known defendant for a year and a half, the police officers had instructed him to purchase heroin from defendant, defendant was the person who sold him the heroin, which he delivered to the officers, and the sale took place in defendant's apartment. The officers confirmed the informant's instructions and the officer, who had not previously known defendant, testified that, during questioning after defendant's arrest, he recognized defendant's voice as the voice he had heard while monitoring the informant's wire and on the tape recording of the purchase. From the informant's testimony and other evidence confirming it, which included a translation of the tape recording of the purchase and proof that defendant was the sole tenant of the apartment where the purchase occurred,...