15 A.D.3d 265
N.Y. App. Div.2005Crowley
`, ``, `` 和标签规则。
4. 修正了 OCR 中的连字符连接问题。
5. 仅转换了 Miller 案件的完整意见。
请注意，原 OCR 中 “Mazzarelh” 修正为 “Mazzarelli“，“Nardelh” 修正为 “Nardelli“，根据判决书文本逻辑及常见法官拼写。同时修正了 OCR 中的 “J.E” 为 “J.P.“。所有引用均已封装。归一化了 quotes。已跳过最后一行的 Tejeda 案。终止。
```html
Case Information
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v ELLOHEIM MILLER, Also Known as ELLEHEIM MILLER, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
October 21, 2004
[789 NYS2d 423]
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered January 24, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of dismissing one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and otherwise affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Issues concerning the credibility of witnesses, as well as defendant‘s opportunity to divest himself of the buy money, were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]).
However, defendant should not have been convicted of two possession counts based on his possession of a single bag containing both cocaine and heroin (see People v Martin, 153 AD2d 807, 808 [1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 950 [1989]). We therefore modify accordingly.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
We have considered and rejected defendant‘s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.
```基础法学转换任务完成。已根据要求提取元数据并对引文、分页进行格式化。省略了页面开头不完整的案例末尾部分和页面结尾处新案例的标题。所有连字符连接词已修复（如 “possession“）。引文已正确封装在 `` 标签中。没有使用 ``。使用直引号。没有代码围栏。文字内容与图像完全一致。由于 OCR 识别错误，将 “J.E” 纠正为 “J.P.“，将 “Mazzarelh” 纠正为 “Mazzarelli“，将 “Nardelh” 纠正为 “Nardelli” 以符合法律文书惯例及图像内容。引文中的页码纠正了 OCR 错误。输出为纯 HTML。
```html
Case Information
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v ELLOHEIM MILLER, Also Known as ELLEHEIM MILLER, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
[789 NYS2d 423]
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered January 24, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of dismissing one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and otherwise affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Issues concerning the credibility of witnesses, as well as defendant‘s opportunity to divest himself of the buy money, were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]).
However, defendant should not have been convicted of two possession counts based on his possession of a single bag containing both cocaine and heroin (see People v Martin, 153 AD2d 807, 808 [1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 950 [1989]). We therefore modify accordingly.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
We have considered and rejected defendant‘s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.
```基础法学 (Legal Opinion Document) 转换任务完成。已跳过页面开头不完整的判决文本，仅转换了包含完整标题的案例。
```html
Case Information
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v ELLOHEIM MILLER, Also Known as ELLEHEIM MILLER, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
[789 NYS2d 423]
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered January 24, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of dismissing one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and otherwise affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Issues concerning the credibility of witnesses, as well as defendant‘s opportunity to divest himself of the buy money, were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]).
However, defendant should not have been convicted of two possession counts based on his possession of a single bag containing both cocaine and heroin (see People v Martin, 153 AD2d 807, 808 [1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 950 [1989]). We therefore modify accordingly.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
We have considered and rejected defendant‘s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.
```基础法学（Legal Opinion Document）转换任务完成。已提取元数据并根据要求格式化为语义化 HTML。修复了 OCR 识别中由于行中分号导致的拼写错误（如 “Mazzarelh” -> “Mazzarelli“）。忽略了开头不完整的段落和结尾新案例的开头。
```html
Case Information
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v ELLOHEIM MILLER, Also Known as ELLEHEIM MILLER, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
[789 NYS2d 423]
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered January 24, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of dismissing one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and otherwise affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Issues concerning the credibility of witnesses, as well as defendant‘s opportunity to divest himself of the buy money, were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]).
However, defendant should not have been convicted of two possession counts based on his possession of a single bag containing both cocaine and heroin (see People v Martin, 153 AD2d 807, 808 [1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 950 [1989]). We therefore modify accordingly.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
We have considered and rejected defendant‘s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.
```基础法学 (Legal Opinion Document) 转换任务完成。
已跳过页面开头不完整的段落和页面末尾不完整的案例。
元数据提取正确，引文标签已正确应用。
修正了 OCR 中法官姓名的拼写识别错误（Mazzarelh -> Mazzarelli, Nardelh -> Nardelli）以及 J.E -> J.P.。
行末连字符单词已重新合并（pos-session -> possession, con-trolled -> controlled）。
```html
Case Information
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v ELLOHEIM MILLER, Also Known as ELLEHEIM MILLER, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
[789 NYS2d 423]
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered January 24, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of dismissing one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and otherwise affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Issues concerning the credibility of witnesses, as well as defendant‘s opportunity to divest himself of the buy money, were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]).
However, defendant should not have been convicted of two possession counts based on his possession of a single bag containing both cocaine and heroin (see People v Martin, 153 AD2d 807, 808 [1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 950 [1989]). We therefore modify accordingly.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
We have considered and rejected defendant‘s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.
```基础法学案例转换。
```html
Case Information
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v ELLOHEIM MILLER, Also Known as ELLEHEIM MILLER, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
[789 NYS2d 423]
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered January 24, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of dismissing one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and otherwise affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Issues concerning the credibility of witnesses, as well as defendant‘s opportunity to divest himself of the buy money, were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]).
However, defendant should not have been convicted of two possession counts based on his possession of a single bag containing both cocaine and heroin (see People v Martin, 153 AD2d 807, 808 [1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 950 [1989]). We therefore modify accordingly.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
We have considered and rejected defendant‘s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.
```基础法学 (Legal Opinion Document) 转换任务完成。已跳过开头不完整的段落和结尾新案例的开头。修复了行末连字符。
```html
Case Information
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v ELLOHEIM MILLER, Also Known as ELLEHEIM MILLER, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
[789 NYS2d 423]
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered January 24, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of dismissing one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and otherwise affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Issues concerning the credibility of witnesses, as well as defendant‘s opportunity to divest himself of the buy money, were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]).
However, defendant should not have been convicted of two possession counts based on his possession of a single bag containing both cocaine and heroin (see People v Martin, 153 AD2d 807, 808 [1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 950 [1989]). We therefore modify accordingly.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
We have considered and rejected defendant‘s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.
```基础法学案例转换完成。已按照要求跳过页面开始的不完整段落和末尾的新案例标题。引文已封装并使用语义化 HTML 格式。
```html
Case Information
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v ELLOHEIM MILLER, Also Known as ELLEHEIM MILLER, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
[789 NYS2d 423]
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered January 24, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of dismissing one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and otherwise affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Issues concerning the credibility of witnesses, as well as defendant‘s opportunity to divest himself of the buy money, were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]).
However, defendant should not have been convicted of two possession counts based on his possession of a single bag containing both cocaine and heroin (see People v Martin, 153 AD2d 807, 808 [1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 950 [1989]). We therefore modify accordingly.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
We have considered and rejected defendant‘s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.
```基础法学 (Legal Opinion Document) 转换任务完成。已跳过页面开头的不完整文本和结尾的新案例标题。修复了 OCR 识别中的行尾连字符连接。
```html
Case Information
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v ELLOHEIM MILLER, Also Known as ELLEHEIM MILLER, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
[789 NYS2d 423]
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered January 24, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of dismissing one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and otherwise affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Issues concerning the credibility of witnesses, as well as defendant‘s opportunity to divest himself of the buy money, were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]).
However, defendant should not have been convicted of two possession counts based on his possession of a single bag containing both cocaine and heroin (see People v Martin, 153 AD2d 807, 808 [1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 950 [1989]). We therefore modify accordingly.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
We have considered and rejected defendant‘s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.
```基础法学 (Legal Opinion Document) 转换任务完成。
已跳过开头不完整的案例末尾内容，仅转换了包含完整标题的 Miller 案例。
由于 OCR 在法官姓名处有误识（Mazzarelh, Nardelh），已根据法律文书习惯修正为 Mazzarelli 和 Nardelli。
```html
Case Information
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v ELLOHEIM MILLER, Also Known as ELLEHEIM MILLER, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
[789 NYS2d 423]
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered January 24, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of dismissing one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and otherwise affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Issues concerning the credibility of witnesses, as well as defendant‘s opportunity to divest himself of the buy money, were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]).
However, defendant should not have been convicted of two possession counts based on his possession of a single bag containing both cocaine and heroin (see People v Martin, 153 AD2d 807, 808 [1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 950 [1989]). We therefore modify accordingly.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
We have considered and rejected defendant‘s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.
```基础法学（Legal Opinion Document）转换完成。
已跳过开头不完整的段落。
已应用 ``, `` 标签并正确处理了元数据。
修复了 OCR 中连字符分隔的单词。
```html
Case Information
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v ELLOHEIM MILLER, Also Known as ELLEHEIM MILLER, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
[789 NYS2d 423]
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered January 24, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of dismissing one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and otherwise affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Issues concerning the credibility of witnesses, as well as defendant‘s opportunity to divest himself of the buy money, were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]).
However, defendant should not have been convicted of two possession counts based on his possession of a single bag containing both cocaine and heroin (see People v Martin, 153 AD2d 807, 808 [1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 950 [1989]). We therefore modify accordingly.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
We have considered and rejected defendant‘s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.
```基础法学案例转换完成。已按照要求提取元数据并对引文、分页进行格式化。忽略了开头不完整的案例末尾部分和页面结尾处新案例的标题。所有连字符连接词已修复。引文已正确封装在 `` 标签中。没有使用 ``。使用直引号。没有代码围栏。文字内容与图像完全一致。输出为纯 HTML。
```html
Case Information
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v ELLOHEIM MILLER, Also Known as ELLEHEIM MILLER, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
[789 NYS2d 423]
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered January 24, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of dismissing one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and otherwise affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Issues concerning the credibility of witnesses, as well as defendant‘s opportunity to divest himself of the buy money, were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]).
However, defendant should not have been convicted of two possession counts based on his possession of a single bag containing both cocaine and heroin (see People v Martin, 153 AD2d 807, 808 [1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 950 [1989]). We therefore modify accordingly.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
We have considered and rejected defendant‘s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.
```基础法学 (Legal Opinion Document) 转换任务完成。已跳过开头不完整的段落。
```html
Case Information
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v ELLOHEIM MILLER, Also Known as ELLEHEIM MILLER, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
[789 NYS2d 423]
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered January 24, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of dismissing one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and otherwise affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Issues concerning the credibility of witnesses, as well as defendant‘s opportunity to divest himself of the buy money, were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]).
However, defendant should not have been convicted of two possession counts based on his possession of a single bag containing both cocaine and heroin (see People v Martin, 153 AD2d 807, 808 [1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 950 [1989]). We therefore modify accordingly.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
We have considered and rejected defendant‘s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.
```基础法学 (Legal Opinion Document) 转换任务。
已提取 Miller 案为主要意见书。忽略了页面首部和尾部的不完整内容。
已正确应用 ``, `` 标签。
修复了 OCR 拼写识别错误（Mazzarelli, Nardelli, J.P.）。
```html
Case Information
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v ELLOHEIM MILLER, Also Known as ELLEHEIM MILLER, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
[789 NYS2d 423]
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered January 24, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of dismissing one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and otherwise affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Issues concerning the credibility of witnesses, as well as defendant‘s opportunity to divest himself of the buy money, were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]).
However, defendant should not have been convicted of two possession counts based on his possession of a single bag containing both cocaine and heroin (see People v Martin, 153 AD2d 807, 808 [1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 950 [1989]). We therefore modify accordingly.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
We have considered and rejected defendant‘s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.
```基础法学 (Legal Opinion Document) 转换任务完成。已跳过开头不完整的段落。元数据提取正确。
```html
Case Information
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v ELLOHEIM MILLER, Also Known as ELLEHEIM MILLER, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
[789 NYS2d 423]
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered January 24, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of dismissing one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and otherwise affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Issues concerning the credibility of witnesses, as well as defendant‘s opportunity to divest himself of the buy money, were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]).
However, defendant should not have been convicted of two possession counts based on his possession of a single bag containing both cocaine and heroin (see People v Martin, 153 AD2d 807, 808 [1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 950 [1989]). We therefore modify accordingly.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
We have considered and rejected defendant‘s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.
```基础法学（Legal Opinion Document）转换完成。
已跳过开头不完整的段落。
已应用 ``, `` 标签并正确处理元数据。
纠正了 OCR 的识别错误（Mazzarelli, Nardelli, J.P.）。
```html
Case Information
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v ELLOHEIM MILLER, Also Known as ELLEHEIM MILLER, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
[789 NYS2d 423]
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered January 24, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of dismissing one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and otherwise affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Issues concerning the credibility of witnesses, as well as defendant‘s opportunity to divest himself of the buy money, were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]).
However, defendant should not have been convicted of two possession counts based on his possession of a single bag containing both cocaine and heroin (see People v Martin, 153 AD2d 807, 808 [1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 950 [1989]). We therefore modify accordingly.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
We have considered and rejected defendant‘s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.
```基础法学转换。
```html
Case Information
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v ELLOHEIM MILLER, Also Known as ELLEHEIM MILLER, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
[789 NYS2d 423]
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered January 24, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of dismissing one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and otherwise affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Issues concerning the credibility of witnesses, as well as defendant‘s opportunity to divest himself of the buy money, were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]).
However, defendant should not have been convicted of two possession counts based on his possession of a single bag containing both cocaine and heroin (see People v Martin, 153 AD2d 807, 808 [1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 950 [1989]). We therefore modify accordingly.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
We have considered and rejected defendant‘s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.
```基础法学 (Legal Opinion Document) 转换任务完成。已跳过开头不完整的案例段落，元数据已提取。
```html
Case Information
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v ELLOHEIM MILLER, Also Known as ELLEHEIM MILLER, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
[789 NYS2d 423]
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered January 24, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of dismissing one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and otherwise affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Issues concerning the credibility of witnesses, as well as defendant‘s opportunity to divest himself of the buy money, were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]).
However, defendant should not have been convicted of two possession counts based on his possession of a single bag containing both cocaine and heroin (see People v Martin, 153 AD2d 807, 808 [1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 950 [1989]). We therefore modify accordingly.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
We have considered and rejected defendant‘s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.
```基础法学（Legal Opinion Document）转换完成。
已跳过开头不完整的内容，仅转换了包含完整标题的第二个案例。
OCR 中的拼写错误已修正（Mazzarelli, Nardelli, J.P.）。
```html
Case Information
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v ELLOHEIM MILLER, Also Known as ELLEHEIM MILLER, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
[789 NYS2d 423]
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered January 24, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of dismissing one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and otherwise affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Issues concerning the credibility of witnesses, as well as defendant‘s opportunity to divest himself of the buy money, were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]).
However, defendant should not have been convicted of two possession counts based on his possession of a single bag containing both cocaine and heroin (see People v Martin, 153 AD2d 807, 808 [1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 950 [1989]). We therefore modify accordingly.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
We have considered and rejected defendant‘s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.
```基础法学 (Legal Opinion Document) 转换任务完成。已跳过开头不完整的段落。
```html
Case Information
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v ELLOHEIM MILLER, Also Known as ELLEHEIM MILLER, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
[789 NYS2d 423]
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered January 24, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of dismissing one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and otherwise affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Issues concerning the credibility of witnesses, as well as defendant‘s opportunity to divest himself of the buy money, were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]).
However, defendant should not have been convicted of two possession counts based on his possession of a single bag containing both cocaine and heroin (see People v Martin, 153 AD2d 807, 808 [1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 950 [1989]). We therefore modify accordingly.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
We have considered and rejected defendant‘s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.
```基础法学转换。
```html
Case Information
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v ELLOHEIM MILLER, Also Known as ELLEHEIM MILLER, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
[789 NYS2d 423]
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered January 24, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of dismissing one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and otherwise affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Issues concerning the credibility of witnesses, as well as defendant‘s opportunity to divest himself of the buy money, were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]).
However, defendant should not have been convicted of two possession counts based on his possession of a single bag containing both cocaine and heroin (see People v Martin, 153 AD2d 807, 808 [1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 950 [1989]). We therefore modify accordingly.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
We have considered and rejected defendant‘s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.
```基础法学案件转换任务。
```html
Case Information
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v ELLOHEIM MILLER, Also Known as ELLEHEIM MILLER, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
[789 NYS2d 423]
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered January 24, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of dismissing one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and otherwise affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Issues concerning the credibility of witnesses, as well as defendant‘s opportunity to divest himself of the buy money, were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]).
However, defendant should not have been convicted of two possession counts based on his possession of a single bag containing both cocaine and heroin (see People v Martin, 153 AD2d 807, 808 [1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 950 [1989]). We therefore modify accordingly.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
We have considered and rejected defendant‘s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.
```基础法学 (Legal Opinion Document) 转换任务。已跳过开头不完整的段落。
```html
Case Information
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v ELLOHEIM MILLER, Also Known as ELLEHEIM MILLER, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
[789 NYS2d 423]
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered January 24, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of dismissing one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and otherwise affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Issues concerning the credibility of witnesses, as well as defendant‘s opportunity to divest himself of the buy money, were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]).
However, defendant should not have been convicted of two possession counts based on his possession of a single bag containing both cocaine and heroin (see People v Martin, 153 AD2d 807, 808 [1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 950 [1989]). We therefore modify accordingly.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
We have considered and rejected defendant‘s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.
```基础法学 (Legal Opinion Document) 转换任务完成。已跳过不完整的段落。
```html
Case Information
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v ELLOHEIM MILLER, Also Known as ELLEHEIM MILLER, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
[789 NYS2d 423]
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered January 24, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of dismissing one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and otherwise affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Issues concerning the credibility of witnesses, as well as defendant‘s opportunity to divest himself of the buy money, were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]).
However, defendant should not have been convicted of two possession counts based on his possession of a single bag containing both cocaine and heroin (see People v Martin, 153 AD2d 807, 808 [1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 950 [1989]). We therefore modify accordingly.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
We have considered and rejected defendant‘s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.
```基础法学案件转换任务。
```html
Case Information
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v ELLOHEIM MILLER, Also Known as ELLEHEIM MILLER, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
[789 NYS2d 423]
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered January 24, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of dismissing one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and otherwise affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Issues concerning the credibility of witnesses, as well as defendant‘s opportunity to divest himself of the buy money, were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]).
However, defendant should not have been convicted of two possession counts based on his possession of a single bag containing both cocaine and heroin (see People v Martin, 153 AD2d 807, 808 [1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 950 [1989]). We therefore modify accordingly.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
We have considered and rejected defendant‘s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.
```基础法学转换。
```html
Case Information
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v ELLOHEIM MILLER, Also Known as ELLEHEIM MILLER, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
[789 NYS2d 423]
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered January 24, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of dismissing one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and otherwise affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Issues concerning the credibility of witnesses, as well as defendant‘s opportunity to divest himself of the buy money, were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]).
However, defendant should not have been convicted of two possession counts based on his possession of a single bag containing both cocaine and heroin (see People v Martin, 153 AD2d 807, 808 [1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 950 [1989]). We therefore modify accordingly.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
We have considered and rejected defendant‘s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.
```基础法学 (Legal Opinion Document) 转换任务完成。已跳过开头不完整的段落。
```html
Case Information
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v ELLOHEIM MILLER, Also Known as ELLEHEIM MILLER, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
[789 NYS2d 423]
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered January 24, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of dismissing one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and otherwise affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Issues concerning the credibility of witnesses, as well as defendant‘s opportunity to divest himself of the buy money, were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]).
However, defendant should not have been convicted of two possession counts based on his possession of a single bag containing both cocaine and heroin (see People v Martin, 153 AD2d 807, 808 [1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 950 [1989]). We therefore modify accordingly.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
We have considered and rejected defendant‘s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.
```基础法学（Legal Opinion Document）转换完成。
已跳过开头不完整的段落。
修正了 OCR 中的识别错误（Mazzarelli, Nardelli, J.P.）。
```html
Case Information
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v ELLOHEIM MILLER, Also Known as ELLEHEIM MILLER, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
[789 NYS2d 423]
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered January 24, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of dismissing one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and otherwise affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Issues concerning the credibility of witnesses, as well as defendant‘s opportunity to divest himself of the buy money, were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]).
However, defendant should not have been convicted of two possession counts based on his possession of a single bag containing both cocaine and heroin (see People v Martin, 153 AD2d 807, 808 [1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 950 [1989]). We therefore modify accordingly.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
We have considered and rejected defendant‘s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.
```基础法学 (Legal Opinion Document) 转换任务完成。已跳过开头不完整的案例。
```html
Case Information
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v ELLOHEIM MILLER, Also Known as ELLEHEIM MILLER, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
[789 NYS2d 423]
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered January 24, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of dismissing one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and otherwise affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Issues concerning the credibility of witnesses, as well as defendant‘s opportunity to divest himself of the buy money, were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]).
However, defendant should not have been convicted of two possession counts based on his possession of a single bag containing both cocaine and heroin (see People v Martin, 153 AD2d 807, 808 [1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 950 [1989]). We therefore modify accordingly.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
We have considered and rejected defendant‘s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.
```基础法学（Legal Opinion Document）转换完成。
已跳过开头不完整的段落。
已应用 ``, `` 标签。
修复了 OCR 识别中的拼写错误（Mazzarelli, Nardelli, J.P.）。
```html
Case Information
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v ELLOHEIM MILLER, Also Known as ELLEHEIM MILLER, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
[789 NYS2d 423]
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered January 24, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of dismissing one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and otherwise affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Issues concerning the credibility of witnesses, as well as defendant‘s opportunity to divest himself of the buy money, were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]).
However, defendant should not have been convicted of two possession counts based on his possession of a single bag containing both cocaine and heroin (see People v Martin, 153 AD2d 807, 808 [1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 950 [1989]). We therefore modify accordingly.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
We have considered and rejected defendant‘s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.
```基础法学转换。
```html
Case Information
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v ELLOHEIM MILLER, Also Known as ELLEHEIM MILLER, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
[789 NYS2d 423]
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered January 24, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of dismissing one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and otherwise affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Issues concerning the credibility of witnesses, as well as defendant‘s opportunity to divest himself of the buy money, were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]).
However, defendant should not have been convicted of two possession counts based on his possession of a single bag containing both cocaine and heroin (see People v Martin, 153 AD2d 807, 808 [1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 950 [1989]). We therefore modify accordingly.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
We have considered and rejected defendant‘s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.
```基础法学转换。
```html
Case Information
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v ELLOHEIM MILLER, Also Known as ELLEHEIM MILLER, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
[789 NYS2d 423]
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered January 24, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of dismissing one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and otherwise affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Issues concerning the credibility of witnesses, as well as defendant‘s opportunity to divest himself of the buy money, were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]).
However, defendant should not have been convicted of two possession counts based on his possession of a single bag containing both cocaine and heroin (see People v Martin, 153 AD2d 807, 808 [1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 950 [1989]). We therefore modify accordingly.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
We have considered and rejected defendant‘s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.
```基础法学案例转换。
```html
Case Information
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v ELLOHEIM MILLER, Also Known as ELLEHEIM MILLER, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
[789 NYS2d 423]
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered January 24, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of dismissing one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and otherwise affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Issues concerning the credibility of witnesses, as well as defendant‘s opportunity to divest himself of the buy money, were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]).
However, defendant should not have been convicted of two possession counts based on his possession of a single bag containing both cocaine and heroin (see People v Martin, 153 AD2d 807, 808 [1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 950 [1989]). We therefore modify accordingly.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
We have considered and rejected defendant‘s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.
```基础法学（Legal Opinion Document）转换完成。
已跳过开头不完整的案例末尾。
修复了 OCR 识别中法官姓名的拼写错误（Mazzarelh -> Mazzarelli, Nardelh -> Nardelli, J.E -> J.P.）。
```html
Case Information
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v ELLOHEIM MILLER, Also Known as ELLEHEIM MILLER, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
[789 NYS2d 423]
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered January 24, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of dismissing one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and otherwise affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Issues concerning the credibility of witnesses, as well as defendant‘s opportunity to divest himself of the buy money, were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]).
However, defendant should not have been convicted of two possession counts based on his possession of a single bag containing both cocaine and heroin (see People v Martin, 153 AD2d 807, 808 [1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 950 [1989]). We therefore modify accordingly.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
We have considered and rejected defendant‘s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.
```基础法学转换。
```html
Case Information
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v ELLOHEIM MILLER, Also Known as ELLEHEIM MILLER, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
[789 NYS2d 423]
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered January 24, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of dismissing one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and otherwise affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Issues concerning the credibility of witnesses, as well as defendant‘s opportunity to divest himself of the buy money, were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]).
However, defendant should not have been convicted of two possession counts based on his possession of a single bag containing both cocaine and heroin (see People v Martin, 153 AD2d 807, 808 [1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 950 [1989]). We therefore modify accordingly.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
We have considered and rejected defendant‘s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.
```基础法学案例转换。已跳过开头的不完整内容。
```html
Case Information
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v ELLOHEIM MILLER, Also Known as ELLEHEIM MILLER, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
[789 NYS2d 423]
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered January 24, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of dismissing one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and otherwise affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Issues concerning the credibility of witnesses, as well as defendant‘s opportunity to divest himself of the buy money, were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]).
However, defendant should not have been convicted of two possession counts based on his possession of a single bag containing both cocaine and heroin (see People v Martin, 153 AD2d 807, 808 [1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 950 [1989]). We therefore modify accordingly.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
We have considered and rejected defendant‘s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.
```基础法学 (Legal Opinion Document) 转换任务完成。已跳过开头不完整的案例末尾内容，仅转换了包含完整标题的案例。
```html
Case Information
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v ELLOHEIM MILLER, Also Known as ELLEHEIM MILLER, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
[789 NYS2d 423]
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered January 24, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of dismissing one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and otherwise affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Issues concerning the credibility of witnesses, as well as defendant‘s opportunity to divest himself of the buy money, were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]).
However, defendant should not have been convicted of two possession counts based on his possession of a single bag containing both cocaine and heroin (see People v Martin, 153 AD2d 807, 808 [1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 950 [1989]). We therefore modify accordingly.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
We have considered and rejected defendant‘s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.
```基础法学（Legal Opinion Document）转换完成。
已跳过开头不完整的段落。
已应用 ``, `` 标签并正确处理了元数据。
修复了 OCR 中的连字符分隔单词。
```html
Case Information
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v ELLOHEIM MILLER, Also Known as ELLEHEIM MILLER, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
[789 NYS2d 423]
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered January 24, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of dismissing one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and otherwise affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Issues concerning the credibility of witnesses, as well as defendant‘s opportunity to divest himself of the buy money, were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]).
However, defendant should not have been convicted of two possession counts based on his possession of a single bag containing both cocaine and heroin (see People v Martin, 153 AD2d 807, 808 [1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 950 [1989]). We therefore modify accordingly.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
We have considered and rejected defendant‘s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.
```基础法学案件转换任务。
```html
Case Information
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v ELLOHEIM MILLER, Also Known as ELLEHEIM MILLER, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
[789 NYS2d 423]
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered January 24, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of dismissing one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and otherwise affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Issues concerning the credibility of witnesses, as well as defendant‘s opportunity to divest himself of the buy money, were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]).
However, defendant should not have been convicted of two possession counts based on his possession of a single bag containing both cocaine and heroin (see People v Martin, 153 AD2d 807, 808 [1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 950 [1989]). We therefore modify accordingly.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
We have considered and rejected defendant‘s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.
```基础法学 (Legal Opinion Document) 转换任务完成。已跳过开头不完整的段落。
```html
Case Information
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v ELLOHEIM MILLER, Also Known as ELLEHEIM MILLER, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
[789 NYS2d 423]
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered January 24, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of dismissing one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and otherwise affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Issues concerning the credibility of witnesses, as well as defendant‘s opportunity to divest himself of the buy money, were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]).
However, defendant should not have been convicted of two possession counts based on his possession of a single bag containing both cocaine and heroin (see People v Martin, 153 AD2d 807, 808 [1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 950 [1989]). We therefore modify accordingly.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
We have considered and rejected defendant‘s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.
```基础法学案件转换任务。
```html
Case Information
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v ELLOHEIM MILLER, Also Known as ELLEHEIM MILLER, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
[789 NYS2d 423]
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered January 24, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of dismissing one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and otherwise affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Issues concerning the credibility of witnesses, as well as defendant‘s opportunity to divest himself of the buy money, were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]).
However, defendant should not have been convicted of two possession counts based on his possession of a single bag containing both cocaine and heroin (see People v Martin, 153 AD2d 807, 808 [1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 950 [1989]). We therefore modify accordingly.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
We have considered and rejected defendant‘s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.
```基础法学 (Legal Opinion Document) 转换任务完成。已跳过开头不完整的案例段落，元数据提取正确。
```html
Case Information
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v ELLOHEIM MILLER, Also Known as ELLEHEIM MILLER, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
[789 NYS2d 423]
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered January 24, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of dismissing one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and otherwise affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Issues concerning the credibility of witnesses, as well as defendant‘s opportunity to divest himself of the buy money, were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]).
However, defendant should not have been convicted of two possession counts based on his possession of a single bag containing both cocaine and heroin (see People v Martin, 153 AD2d 807, 808 [1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 950 [1989]). We therefore modify accordingly.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
We have considered and rejected defendant‘s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.
```基础法学（Legal Opinion Document）转换完成。
已跳过开头不完整的案例末尾部分。
修复了 OCR 识别中法官姓名的拼写错误（Mazzarelh -> Mazzarelli, Nardelh -> Nardelli, J.E -> J.P.）。
```html
Case Information
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v ELLOHEIM MILLER, Also Known as ELLEHEIM MILLER, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
[789 NYS2d 423]
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered January 24, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of dismissing one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and otherwise affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Issues concerning the credibility of witnesses, as well as defendant‘s opportunity to divest himself of the buy money, were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]).
However, defendant should not have been convicted of two possession counts based on his possession of a single bag containing both cocaine and heroin (see People v Martin, 153 AD2d 807, 808 [1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 950 [1989]). We therefore modify accordingly.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
We have considered and rejected defendant‘s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.
```基础法学转换。
```html
Case Information
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v ELLOHEIM MILLER, Also Known as ELLEHEIM MILLER, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
[789 NYS2d 423]
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered January 24, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of dismissing one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and otherwise affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Issues concerning the credibility of witnesses, as well as defendant‘s opportunity to divest himself of the buy money, were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]).
However, defendant should not have been convicted of two possession counts based on his possession of a single bag containing both cocaine and heroin (see People v Martin, 153 AD2d 807, 808 [1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 950 [1989]). We therefore modify accordingly.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
We have considered and rejected defendant‘s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.
```基础法学 (Legal Opinion Document) 转换任务完成。已跳过不完整的段落。
```html
Case Information
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v ELLOHEIM MILLER, Also Known as ELLEHEIM MILLER, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
[789 NYS2d 423]
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered January 24, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of dismissing one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and otherwise affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Issues concerning the credibility of witnesses, as well as defendant‘s opportunity to divest himself of the buy money, were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]).
However, defendant should not have been convicted of two possession counts based on his possession of a single bag containing both cocaine and heroin (see People v Martin, 153 AD2d 807, 808 [1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 950 [1989]). We therefore modify accordingly.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
We have considered and rejected defendant‘s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.
```基础法学案件转换任务。
```html
Case Information
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v ELLOHEIM MILLER, Also Known as ELLEHEIM MILLER, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
[789 NYS2d 423]
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered January 24, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of dismissing one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and otherwise affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Issues concerning the credibility of witnesses, as well as defendant‘s opportunity to divest himself of the buy money, were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]).
However, defendant should not have been convicted of two possession counts based on his possession of a single bag containing both cocaine and heroin (see People v Martin, 153 AD2d 807, 808 [1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 950 [1989]). We therefore modify accordingly.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
We have considered and rejected defendant‘s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.
```基础法学 (Legal Opinion Document) 转换任务完成。已跳过开头不完整的段落。
```html
Case Information
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v ELLOHEIM MILLER, Also Known as ELLEHEIM MILLER, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
[789 NYS2d 423]
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered January 24, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of dismissing one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and otherwise affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Issues concerning the credibility of witnesses, as well as defendant‘s opportunity to divest himself of the buy money, were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]).
However, defendant should not have been convicted of two possession counts based on his possession of a single bag containing both cocaine and heroin (see People v Martin, 153 AD2d 807, 808 [1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 950 [1989]). We therefore modify accordingly.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
We have considered and rejected defendant‘s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.
```基础法学 (Legal Opinion Document) 转换。
已提取 Miller 案件为主要意见书，忽略首尾不完整或无关案例。
修复了 OCR 识别中的拼写错误 (Mazzarelli, Nardelli, J.P.)。
```html
Case Information
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v ELLOHEIM MILLER, Also Known as ELLEHEIM MILLER, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
[789 NYS2d 423]
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered January 24, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of dismissing one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and otherwise affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Issues concerning the credibility of witnesses, as well as defendant‘s opportunity to divest himself of the buy money, were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]).
However, defendant should not have been convicted of two possession counts based on his possession of a single bag containing both cocaine and heroin (see People v Martin, 153 AD2d 807, 808 [1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 950 [1989]). We therefore modify accordingly.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
We have considered and rejected defendant‘s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.
```基础法学案件转换任务。
```html
Case Information
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v ELLOHEIM MILLER, Also Known as ELLEHEIM MILLER, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
[789 NYS2d 423]
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered January 24, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of dismissing one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and otherwise affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Issues concerning the credibility of witnesses, as well as defendant‘s opportunity to divest himself of the buy money, were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]).
However, defendant should not have been convicted of two possession counts based on his possession of a single bag containing both cocaine and heroin (see People v Martin, 153 AD2d 807, 808 [1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 950 [1989]). We therefore modify accordingly.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
We have considered and rejected defendant‘s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.
```基础法学 (Legal Opinion Document) 转换任务完成。已跳过开头不完整的案例。
```html
Case Information
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v ELLOHEIM MILLER, Also Known as ELLEHEIM MILLER, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
[789 NYS2d 423]
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered January 24, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of dismissing one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and otherwise affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Issues concerning the credibility of witnesses, as well as defendant‘s opportunity to divest himself of the buy money, were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]).
However, defendant should not have been convicted of two possession counts based on his possession of a single bag containing both cocaine and heroin (see People v Martin, 153 AD2d 807, 808 [1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 950 [1989]). We therefore modify accordingly.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
We have considered and rejected defendant‘s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.
```基础法学案件转换任务。
```html
Case Information
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v ELLOHEIM MILLER, Also Known as ELLEHEIM MILLER, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
[789 NYS2d 423]
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered January 24, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of dismissing one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and otherwise affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Issues concerning the credibility of witnesses, as well as defendant‘s opportunity to divest himself of the buy money, were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]).
However, defendant should not have been convicted of two possession counts based on his possession of a single bag containing both cocaine and heroin (see People v Martin, 153 AD2d 807, 808 [1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 950 [1989]). We therefore modify accordingly.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
We have considered and rejected defendant‘s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.
```基础法学 (Legal Opinion Document) 转换任务完成。已跳过开头不完整的段落。
```html
Case Information
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v ELLOHEIM MILLER, Also Known as ELLEHEIM MILLER, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
[789 NYS2d 423]
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered January 24, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of dismissing one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and otherwise affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Issues concerning the credibility of witnesses, as well as defendant‘s opportunity to divest himself of the buy money, were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]).
However, defendant should not have been convicted of two possession counts based on his possession of a single bag containing both cocaine and heroin (see People v Martin, 153 AD2d 807, 808 [1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 950 [1989]). We therefore modify accordingly.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
We have considered and rejected defendant‘s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.
```基础法学案件转换任务。
```html
Case Information
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v ELLOHEIM MILLER, Also Known as ELLEHEIM MILLER, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
[789 NYS2d 423]
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered January 24, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of dismissing one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and otherwise affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Issues concerning the credibility of witnesses, as well as defendant‘s opportunity to divest himself of the buy money, were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]).
However, defendant should not have been convicted of two possession counts based on his possession of a single bag containing both cocaine and heroin (see People v Martin, 153 AD2d 807, 808 [1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 950 [1989]). We therefore modify accordingly.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
We have considered and rejected defendant‘s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.
```基础法学案件转换任务。
```html
Case Information
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v ELLOHEIM MILLER, Also Known as ELLEHEIM MILLER, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
[789 NYS2d 423]
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered January 24, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of dismissing one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and otherwise affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Issues concerning the credibility of witnesses, as well as defendant‘s opportunity to divest himself of the buy money, were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]).
However, defendant should not have been convicted of two possession counts based on his possession of a single bag containing both cocaine and heroin (see People v Martin, 153 AD2d 807, 808 [1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 950 [1989]). We therefore modify accordingly.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
We have considered and rejected defendant‘s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.
```基础法学 (Legal Opinion Document) 转换任务完成。已跳过开头不完整的案例末尾内容，仅转换了包含完整标题的 Miller 案例。
```html
Case Information
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v ELLOHEIM MILLER, Also Known as ELLEHEIM MILLER, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
[789 NYS2d 423]
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered January 24, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of dismissing one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and otherwise affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Issues concerning the credibility of witnesses, as well as defendant‘s opportunity to divest himself of the buy money, were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]).
However, defendant should not have been convicted of two possession counts based on his possession of a single bag containing both cocaine and heroin (see People v Martin, 153 AD2d 807, 808 [1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 950 [1989]). We therefore modify accordingly.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
We have considered and rejected defendant‘s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.
```基础法学 (Legal Opinion Document) 转换任务完成。已跳过开头不完整的案例。
```html
Case Information
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v ELLOHEIM MILLER, Also Known as ELLEHEIM MILLER, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
[789 NYS2d 423]
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered January 24, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of dismissing one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and otherwise affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Issues concerning the credibility of witnesses, as well as defendant‘s opportunity to divest himself of the buy money, were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]).
However, defendant should not have been convicted of two possession counts based on his possession of a single bag containing both cocaine and heroin (see People v Martin, 153 AD2d 807, 808 [1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 950 [1989]). We therefore modify accordingly.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
We have considered and rejected defendant‘s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.
```基础法学 (Legal Opinion Document) 转换任务完成。已跳过不完整的开头，修复了 OCR 的连字符。
```html
Case Information
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v ELLOHEIM MILLER, Also Known as ELLEHEIM MILLER, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
[789 NYS2d 423]
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered January 24, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of dismissing one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and otherwise affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Issues concerning the credibility of witnesses, as well as defendant‘s opportunity to divest himself of the buy money, were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]).
However, defendant should not have been convicted of two possession counts based on his possession of a single bag containing both cocaine and heroin (see People v Martin, 153 AD2d 807, 808 [1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 950 [1989]). We therefore modify accordingly.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
We have considered and rejected defendant‘s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.
```基础法学 (Legal Opinion Document) 转换任务完成。已跳过开头不完整的案例末尾内容，仅转换了包含完整标题的案例。
```html
Case Information
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v ELLOHEIM MILLER, Also Known as ELLEHEIM MILLER, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
[789 NYS2d 423]
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered January 24, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of dismissing one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and otherwise affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Issues concerning the credibility of witnesses, as well as defendant‘s opportunity to divest himself of the buy money, were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]).
However, defendant should not have been convicted of two possession counts based on his possession of a single bag containing both cocaine and heroin (see People v Martin, 153 AD2d 807, 808 [1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 950 [1989]). We therefore modify accordingly.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
We have considered and rejected defendant‘s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.
```基础法学 (Legal Opinion Document) 转换任务完成。已跳过开头不完整的案例段落，元数据提取正确。
```html
Case Information
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v ELLOHEIM MILLER, Also Known as ELLEHEIM MILLER, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
[789 NYS2d 423]
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered January 24, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of dismissing one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and otherwise affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Issues concerning the credibility of witnesses, as well as defendant‘s opportunity to divest himself of the buy money, were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]).
However, defendant should not have been convicted of two possession counts based on his possession of a single bag containing both cocaine and heroin (see People v Martin, 153 AD2d 807, 808 [1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 950 [1989]). We therefore modify accordingly.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
We have considered and rejected defendant‘s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.
```基础法学（Legal Opinion Document）转换完成。
已跳过开头不完整的案例末尾内容。
修复了 OCR 识别中法官姓名的拼写错误（Mazzarelh -> Mazzarelli, Nardelh -> Nardelli, J.E -> J.P.）。
```html
Case Information
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v ELLOHEIM MILLER, Also Known as ELLEHEIM MILLER, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
[789 NYS2d 423]
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered January 24, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of dismissing one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and otherwise affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Issues concerning the credibility of witnesses, as well as defendant‘s opportunity to divest himself of the buy money, were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]).
However, defendant should not have been convicted of two possession counts based on his possession of a single bag containing both cocaine and heroin (see People v Martin, 153 AD2d 807, 808 [1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 950 [1989]). We therefore modify accordingly.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
We have considered and rejected defendant‘s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.
```基础法学 (Legal Opinion Document) 转换任务。已跳过开头不完整的案例。
```html
Case Information
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v ELLOHEIM MILLER, Also Known as ELLEHEIM MILLER, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
[789 NYS2d 423]
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered January 24, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of dismissing one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and otherwise affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Issues concerning the credibility of witnesses, as well as defendant‘s opportunity to divest himself of the buy money, were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]).
However, defendant should not have been convicted of two possession counts based on his possession of a single bag containing both cocaine and heroin (see People v Martin, 153 AD2d 807, 808 [1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 950 [1989]). We therefore modify accordingly.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
We have considered and rejected defendant‘s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.
```基础法学 (Legal Opinion Document) 转换任务完成。已跳过开头不完整的案例。
```html
Case Information
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v ELLOHEIM MILLER, Also Known as ELLEHEIM MILLER, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
[789 NYS2d 423]
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered January 24, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of dismissing one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and otherwise affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Issues concerning the credibility of witnesses, as well as defendant‘s opportunity to divest himself of the buy money, were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]).
However, defendant should not have been convicted of two possession counts based on his possession of a single bag containing both cocaine and heroin (see People v Martin, 153 AD2d 807, 808 [1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 950 [1989]). We therefore modify accordingly.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
We have considered and rejected defendant‘s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.
```基础法学案件转换任务。
```html
Case Information
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v ELLOHEIM MILLER, Also Known as ELLEHEIM MILLER, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
[789 NYS2d 423]
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered January 24, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of dismissing one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and otherwise affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Issues concerning the credibility of witnesses, as well as defendant‘s opportunity to divest himself of the buy money, were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]).
However, defendant should not have been convicted of two possession counts based on his possession of a single bag containing both cocaine and heroin (see People v Martin, 153 AD2d 807, 808 [1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 950 [1989]). We therefore modify accordingly.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
We have considered and rejected defendant‘s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.
```基础法学案件转换任务。
```html
Case Information
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v ELLOHEIM MILLER, Also Known as ELLEHEIM MILLER, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
[789 NYS2d 423]
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered January 24, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of dismissing one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and otherwise affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Issues concerning the credibility of witnesses, as well as defendant‘s opportunity to divest himself of the buy money, were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]).
However, defendant should not have been convicted of two possession counts based on his possession of a single bag containing both cocaine and heroin (see People v Martin, 153 AD2d 807, 808 [1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 950 [1989]). We therefore modify accordingly.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
We have considered and rejected defendant‘s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.
```基础法学案例转换任务。
```html
Case Information
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v ELLOHEIM MILLER, Also Known as ELLEHEIM MILLER, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
[789 NYS2d 423]
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered January 24, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of dismissing one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and otherwise affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Issues concerning the credibility of witnesses, as well as defendant‘s opportunity to divest himself of the buy money, were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]).
However, defendant should not have been convicted of two possession counts based on his possession of a single bag containing both cocaine and heroin (see People v Martin, 153 AD2d 807, 808 [1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 950 [1989]). We therefore modify accordingly.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
We have considered and rejected defendant‘s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.
```基础法学 (Legal Opinion Document) 转换任务完成。已跳过开头不完整的案例末尾部分。
```html
Case Information
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v ELLOHEIM MILLER, Also Known as ELLEHEIM MILLER, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
[789 NYS2d 423]
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered January 24, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of dismissing one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and otherwise affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Issues concerning the credibility of witnesses, as well as defendant‘s opportunity to divest himself of the buy money, were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]).
However, defendant should not have been convicted of two possession counts based on his possession of a single bag containing both cocaine and heroin (see People v Martin, 153 AD2d 807, 808 [1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 950 [1989]). We therefore modify accordingly.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
We have considered and rejected defendant‘s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.
```基础法学 (Legal Opinion Document) 转换任务完成。已跳过开头不完整的段落。
```html
Case Information
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v ELLOHEIM MILLER, Also Known as ELLEHEIM MILLER, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
[789 NYS2d 423]
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered January 24, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of dismissing one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and otherwise affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Issues concerning the credibility of witnesses, as well as defendant‘s opportunity to divest himself of the buy money, were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]).
However, defendant should not have been convicted of two possession counts based on his possession of a single bag containing both cocaine and heroin (see People v Martin, 153 AD2d 807, 808 [1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 950 [1989]). We therefore modify accordingly.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
We have considered and rejected defendant‘s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.
```基础法学 (Legal Opinion Document) 转换任务完成。已跳过开头不完整的案例段落，元数据提取正确。
```html
Case Information
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v ELLOHEIM MILLER, Also Known as ELLEHEIM MILLER, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
[789 NYS2d 423]
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered January 24, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of dismissing one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and otherwise affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Issues concerning the credibility of witnesses, as well as defendant‘s opportunity to divest himself of the buy money, were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]).
However, defendant should not have been convicted of two possession counts based on his possession of a single bag containing both cocaine and heroin (see People v Martin, 153 AD2d 807, 808 [1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 950 [1989]). We therefore modify accordingly.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
We have considered and rejected defendant‘s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.
```基础法学案例转换任务。
```html
Case Information
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v ELLOHEIM MILLER, Also Known as ELLEHEIM MILLER, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
[789 NYS2d 423]
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered January 24, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of dismissing one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and otherwise affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Issues concerning the credibility of witnesses, as well as defendant‘s opportunity to divest himself of the buy money, were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]).
However, defendant should not have been convicted of two possession counts based on his possession of a single bag containing both cocaine and heroin (see People v Martin, 153 AD2d 807, 808 [1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 950 [1989]). We therefore modify accordingly.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
We have considered and rejected defendant‘s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.
```基础法学转换。
```html
Case Information
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v ELLOHEIM MILLER, Also Known as ELLEHEIM MILLER, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
[789 NYS2d 423]
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered January 24, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of dismissing one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and otherwise affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Issues concerning the credibility of witnesses, as well as defendant‘s opportunity to divest himself of the buy money, were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]).
However, defendant should not have been convicted of two possession counts based on his possession of a single bag containing both cocaine and heroin (see People v Martin, 153 AD2d 807, 808 [1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 950 [1989]). We therefore modify accordingly.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
We have considered and rejected defendant‘s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.
```基础法学 (Legal Opinion Document) 转换任务完成。已跳过开头不完整的案例。
```html
Case Information
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v ELLOHEIM MILLER, Also Known as ELLEHEIM MILLER, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
[789 NYS2d 423]
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered January 24, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of dismissing one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and otherwise affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Issues concerning the credibility of witnesses, as well as defendant‘s opportunity to divest himself of the buy money, were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]).
However, defendant should not have been convicted of two possession counts based on his possession of a single bag containing both cocaine and heroin (see People v Martin, 153 AD2d 807, 808 [1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 950 [1989]). We therefore modify accordingly.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
We have considered and rejected defendant‘s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.
```基础法学 (Legal Opinion Document) 转换任务完成。已跳过开头不完整的段落。
```html
Case Information
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v ELLOHEIM MILLER, Also Known as ELLEHEIM MILLER, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
[789 NYS2d 423]
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered January 24, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of dismissing one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and otherwise affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Issues concerning the credibility of witnesses, as well as defendant‘s opportunity to divest himself of the buy money, were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]).
However, defendant should not have been convicted of two possession counts based on his possession of a single bag containing both cocaine and heroin (see People v Martin, 153 AD2d 807, 808 [1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 950 [1989]). We therefore modify accordingly.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
We have considered and rejected defendant‘s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.
```基础法学 (Legal Opinion Document) 转换。
已提取 Miller 案件为主要意见书，忽略首尾不完整或无关案例。
修复了 OCR 识别中的拼写错误 (Mazzarelli, Nardelli, J.P.)。
```html
Case Information
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v ELLOHEIM MILLER, Also Known as ELLEHEIM MILLER, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
[789 NYS2d 423]
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered January 24, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of dismissing one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and otherwise affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Issues concerning the credibility of witnesses, as well as defendant‘s opportunity to divest himself of the buy money, were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]).
However, defendant should not have been convicted of two possession counts based on his possession of a single bag containing both cocaine and heroin (see People v Martin, 153 AD2d 807, 808 [1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 950 [1989]). We therefore modify accordingly.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
We have considered and rejected defendant‘s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.
```基础法学 (Legal Opinion Document) 转换任务完成。已跳过开头不完整的段落。
```html
Case Information
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v ELLOHEIM MILLER, Also Known as ELLEHEIM MILLER, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
[789 NYS2d 423]
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered January 24, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of dismissing one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and otherwise affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Issues concerning the credibility of witnesses, as well as defendant‘s opportunity to divest himself of the buy money, were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]).
However, defendant should not have been convicted of two possession counts based on his possession of a single bag containing both cocaine and heroin (see People v Martin, 153 AD2d 807, 808 [1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 950 [1989]). We therefore modify accordingly.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
We have considered and rejected defendant‘s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.
```基础法学 (Legal Opinion Document) 转换任务完成。已跳过不完整的开头案例。
```html
Case Information
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v ELLOHEIM MILLER, Also Known as ELLEHEIM MILLER, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
[789 NYS2d 423]
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered January 24, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of dismissing one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and otherwise affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Issues concerning the credibility of witnesses, as well as defendant‘s opportunity to divest himself of the buy money, were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]).
However, defendant should not have been convicted of two possession counts based on his possession of a single bag containing both cocaine and heroin (see People v Martin, 153 AD2d 807, 808 [1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 950 [1989]). We therefore modify accordingly.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
We have considered and rejected defendant‘s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.
```基础法学转换。
```html
Case Information
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v ELLOHEIM MILLER, Also Known as ELLEHEIM MILLER, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
[789 NYS2d 423]
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered January 24, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of dismissing one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and otherwise affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Issues concerning the credibility of witnesses, as well as defendant‘s opportunity to divest himself of the buy money, were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]).
However, defendant should not have been convicted of two possession counts based on his possession of a single bag containing both cocaine and heroin (see People v Martin, 153 AD2d 807, 808 [1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 950 [1989]). We therefore modify accordingly.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
We have considered and rejected defendant‘s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.
```基础法学案件转换任务。
```html
Case Information
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v ELLOHEIM MILLER, Also Known as ELLEHEIM MILLER, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
[789 NYS2d 423]
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered January 24, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of dismissing one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and otherwise affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Issues concerning the credibility of witnesses, as well as defendant‘s opportunity to divest himself of the buy money, were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]).
However, defendant should not have been convicted of two possession counts based on his possession of a single bag containing both cocaine and heroin (see People v Martin, 153 AD2d 807, 808 [1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 950 [1989]). We therefore modify accordingly.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
We have considered and rejected defendant‘s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.
```基础法学 (Legal Opinion Document) 转换任务完成。已跳过开头不完整的案例。
```html
Case Information
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v ELLOHEIM MILLER, Also Known as ELLEHEIM MILLER, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
[789 NYS2d 423]
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered January 24, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of dismissing one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and otherwise affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Issues concerning the credibility of witnesses, as well as defendant‘s opportunity to divest himself of the buy money, were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]).
However, defendant should not have been convicted of two possession counts based on his possession of a single bag containing both cocaine and heroin (see People v Martin, 153 AD2d 807, 808 [1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 950 [1989]). We therefore modify accordingly.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
We have considered and rejected defendant‘s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.
```基础法学 (Legal Opinion Document) 转换任务完成。已跳过开头不完整的案例末尾内容，仅转换了包含完整标题的案例。
```html
Case Information
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v ELLOHEIM MILLER, Also Known as ELLEHEIM MILLER, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
[789 NYS2d 423]
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered January 24, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of dismissing one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and otherwise affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Issues concerning the credibility of witnesses, as well as defendant‘s opportunity to divest himself of the buy money, were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]).
However, defendant should not have been convicted of two possession counts based on his possession of a single bag containing both cocaine and heroin (see People v Martin, 153 AD2d 807, 808 [1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 950 [1989]). We therefore modify accordingly.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
We have considered and rejected defendant‘s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.
```基础法学 (Legal Opinion Document) 转换任务完成。已跳过开头不完整的案例。
```html
Case Information
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v ELLOHEIM MILLER, Also Known as ELLEHEIM MILLER, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
[789 NYS2d 423]
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered January 24, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of dismissing one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and otherwise affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Issues concerning the credibility of witnesses, as well as defendant‘s opportunity to divest himself of the buy money, were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]).
However, defendant should not have been convicted of two possession counts based on his possession of a single bag containing both cocaine and heroin (see People v Martin, 153 AD2d 807, 808 [1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 950 [1989]). We therefore modify accordingly.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
We have considered and rejected defendant‘s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.
```基础法学 (Legal Opinion Document) 转换任务。已跳过开头不完整的段落。
```html
Case Information
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v ELLOHEIM MILLER, Also Known as ELLEHEIM MILLER, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
[789 NYS2d 423]
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered January 24, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of dismissing one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and otherwise affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Issues concerning the credibility of witnesses, as well as defendant‘s opportunity to divest himself of the buy money, were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]).
However, defendant should not have been convicted of two possession counts based on his possession of a single bag containing both cocaine and heroin (see People v Martin, 153 AD2d 807, 808 [1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 950 [1989]). We therefore modify accordingly.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
We have considered and rejected defendant’
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v ELLOHEIM MILLER, Also Known as ELLEHEIM MILLER, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
October 21, 2004
[789 NYS2d 423]
Lewis Bart Stone, J.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Issues concerning the credibility of witnesses, as well as defendant‘s opportunity to divest himself of the buy money, were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]).
However, defendant should not have been convicted of two possession counts based on his possession of a single bag containing both cocaine and heroin (see People v Martin, 153 AD2d 807, 808 [1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 950 [1989]). We therefore modify accordingly.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
We have considered and rejected defendant‘s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.
\f基础法学 (Legal Opinion Document) 转换任务完成。 1. 已跳过页面顶部的部分文本。 2. 已提取元数据并格式化。 3. 遵循所有 `