Opinion · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

People v. Lawrence

212 A.D.2d 638

Type
Opinion
Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Jurisdiction
New York
Date
1995-02-14
Topic
litigation

—Appeals by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hall, J.), rendered July 8, 1992, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree under Indictment No. 8975/91, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence, and (2) an amended judgment of the same court, rendered on the same date, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court (Brill, J.), *639upon a finding that he had violated a condition thereof, after a hearing, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon his previous conviction of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree under Indictment No. 8444/90. Ordered that the judgment and amended judgment are affirmed. The defendant’s contention that the People failed to adduce legally sufficient evidence under Indictment No. 8975/91 establishing that he had knowledge of the weight of the controlled substance beyond a reasonable doubt is unpreserved for appellate review and we decline to reach it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see, People v Bright, 210 AD2d 244). The defendant’s remaining contentions are either without merit or do not warrant reversal. Ritter, J.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed People v. Lawrence. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
2 opinions

—Appeals by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hall, J.), rendered July 8, 1992, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree under Indictment No. 8975/91, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence, and (2) an amended judgment of the same court, rendered on the same date, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court (Brill, J.), *639 upon a finding that he had violated a condition thereof, after a hearing, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon his previous conviction of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree under Indictment No. 8444/90.

Ordered that the judgment and amended judgment are affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the People failed to adduce legally sufficient evidence under Indictment No. 8975/91 establishing that he had knowledge of the weight of the controlled substance beyond a reasonable doubt is unpreserved for appellate review and we decline to reach it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see, People v Bright, 210 AD2d 244).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either without merit or do not warrant reversal. Ritter, J. P., Pizzuto, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.