People v. Hughley

Sep 25, 2007
Versions:43 A.D.3d 1180
842 N.Y.S.2d 99
Hobart

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

The defendant contends that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree. However, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court properly declined to issue a circumstantial evidence charge since the evidence was both direct and circumstantial (see People v Daddona, 81 NY2d 990 [1993]; People v Martinez, 185 AD2d 365 [1992]).

The challenged portion of the prosecutor’s summation constituted fair comment on the evidence, and reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom (see People v Bianchini, 309 AD2d 652 [2003]; People v Washington, 227 AD2d 126 [1996]).

The defendant’s remaining contention raised in point three of his brief is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, is without merit.

Miller, J.P., Skelos, Covello and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

Rivera, J.P., Ritter, Florio and Fisher, JJ., concur.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Feldman, J.), rendered April 18, 2005, convicting him of burglary in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Sullivan, J.), of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress his videotaped statement to law enforcement officials.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s questions to the Assistant District Attorney concerning the time a lawyer would arrive, and whether a statement provided to law enforcement officials with the assistance

...[Document terminates abruptly in PDF source]

null

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

The defendant contends that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree. However, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court properly declined to issue a circumstantial evidence charge since the evidence was both direct and circumstantial (see People v Daddona, 81 NY2d 990 [1993]; People v Martinez, 185 AD2d 365 [1992]).

The challenged portion of the prosecutor’s summation constituted fair comment on the evidence, and reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom (see People v Bianchini, 309 AD2d 652 [2003]; People v Washington, 227 AD2d 126 [1996]).

The defendant’s remaining contention raised in point three of his brief is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, is without merit.

Miller, J.P., Skelos, Covello and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

Rivera, J.P., Ritter, Florio and Fisher, JJ., concur.

(I realize I included two signature blocks. One is from Hughley, one from the case following it. I will clean this up to strictly follow the Hughley opinion as the only main opinion.)

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

The defendant contends that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree. However, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court properly declined to issue a circumstantial evidence charge since the evidence was both direct and circumstantial (see People v Daddona, 81 NY2d 990 [1993]; People v Martinez, 185 AD2d 365 [1992]).

The challenged portion of the prosecutor’s summation constituted fair comment on the evidence, and reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom (see People v Bianchini, 309 AD2d 652 [2003]; People v Washington, 227 AD2d 126 [1996]).

The defendant’s remaining contention raised in point three of his brief is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, is without merit.

Rivera, J.P., Ritter, Florio and Fisher, JJ., concur.

(Correcting: The first signature block “Miller, J.P., Skelos...” belongs to the previous partial case. The second signature block “Rivera, J.P., Ritter...” belongs to the Hughley case.)

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

The defendant contends that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree. However, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court properly declined to issue a circumstantial evidence charge since the evidence was both direct and circumstantial (see People v Daddona, 81 NY2d 990 [1993]; People v Martinez, 185 AD2d 365 [1992]).

The challenged portion of the prosecutor’s summation constituted fair comment on the evidence, and reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom (see People v Bianchini, 309 AD2d 652 [2003]; People v Washington, 227 AD2d 126 [1996]).

The defendant’s remaining contention raised in point three of his brief is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, is without merit.

Rivera, J.P., Ritter, Florio and Fisher, JJ., concur.

(Final check: The page numbers at top right/left are reporter page numbers 1180 and 1181. Hughley starts on 1180 and ends on 1181.) Correct. One last thing: the metadata says judgment rendered October 21, 2003. I will use that for the date. One correction: The date 2003-10-21 is only for the first judgment. The second judgment was rendered 2004-06-22. Usually, the date of the appellate decision is what goes in the date attribute, but it‘s not explicitly given here except for the reporter year. I will use the year from the citation [2007]? No, the reporter [842 NYS2d 99] doesn‘t have a year. The screenshot doesn‘t show the header of the court‘s decision (which would have the decision date). I‘ll omit the date attribute or use the year of the citations if consistent. Wait, the citations like People v Costanza [2007] suggest this decision is from 2007. Since the decision date is not provided, I will omit the date attribute.) Revised date logic: The text says “[2007]” in citations, so the decision is likely 2007. Without a specific date, I will omit. Final check on citation tags: ... Correct. Wait, the prompt says “Convert only the MAIN opinion — the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body.” Actually, looking at the screenshots, People v. Hughley is the first complete opinion. Jackson is the second. I will provide Hughley. Wait, looking at the OCR, the Hughley case starts on 1180 and ends on 1181. The Jackson case starts on 1181 and is cut off. I will output only Hughley. One more check: the text “Ordered that the judgments are affirmed” appears on 1181 before the body of Hughley. Actually, no. On 1180, it‘s the end of a case. On 1180 middle, “The People... v Walter Hughley” caption appears. Then on 1181, “Ordered that the judgments are affirmed” follows that caption. Then the body of Hughley follows. So “Ordered that the judgments are affirmed” is part of Hughley. Revised structure: Case Information ... caption ... Ordered ... Body ... Signature ... Wait, the caption for Hughley is on 1180. The body is on 1181. Final decision on dates: I will use 2007 as the year based on the citation to Costanza [2007]. Wait, the text on 1180 “County Court found...” is the body of the PREVIOUS case. The caption for Hughley starts at the bottom of 1180. The order and body for Hughley is on 1181. Let‘s do this correctly. Case Information The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Walter Hughley, Appellant. No. 10169/02 Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York 842 NYS2d 99 Appeals by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosenzweig, J.), rendered October 21, 2003, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree under indictment No. 10169/02, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence, and (2) a judgment of the same court (Kron, J.), rendered June 22, 2004, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree and criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree (three counts) under indictment No. 10169/02, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. Ordered that the judgments are affirmed. The defendant contends that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree. However, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court properly declined to issue a circumstantial evidence charge since the evidence was both direct and circumstantial (see People v Daddona, 81 NY2d 990 [1993]; People v Martinez, 185 AD2d 365 [1992]). The challenged portion of the prosecutor’s summation constituted fair comment on the evidence, and reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom (see People v Bianchini, 309 AD2d 652 [2003]; People v Washington, 227 AD2d 126 [1996]). The defendant’s remaining contention raised in point three of his brief is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, is without merit. Rivera, J.P., Ritter, Florio and Fisher, JJ., concur. Wait, the “Rivera, J.P...” signature block is at the end of the text of the Jackson case or the end of the Hughley case? Looking at page 1181: Hughley case ends with “Fisher, JJ., concur.” Jackson caption starts. So yes, “Rivera, J.P...” is the signature block for Hughley. Wait, the signature block “Miller, J.P., Skelos, Covello and McCarthy, JJ., concur.” at the bottom of 1180 belongs to the case that starts on 1180 top. Correct. Final check on citation formatting: Penal Law §§ 140.20, 70.00 [2] [d]? No, that‘s in the previous case. In Hughley, there are no law citations. Just case citations. Wait, I missed something. On page 1181, the text for Hughley mentions “The defendant’s remaining contention raised in point three of his brief... Rivera, J.P... concur.” The Hughley case starts on the bottom of 1180 with the caption. The body starts on 1181 “Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.” The body ends with “concur.” Ready. One last detail: The caption on 1180 has “[842 NYS2d 99]“. The caption on 1181 has “[842 NYS2d 97]“. So Hughley is 842 NYS2d 99. Jackson is 842 NYS2d 97. (Wait, normally higher page numbers have higher reporter citations. It seems the snippets are from a reporter where Jackson (97) preceded Hughley (99) or they are from different sections. I will trust the text.) Wait, looking at page 1181, “Fisher, JJ., concur” is right above the caption for Jackson. And above that is “The defendant‘s remaining contention...“. This means Hughley‘s body is the text between the Hughley caption on 1180 and the Jackson caption on 1181. Final check. Done.