Case ID: ad2d_281/html/0567-03.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gordon Tarrant, Appellant.
    [721 NYS2d 805]
   —Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (West, J.), rendered June 23, 1999, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by vacating the conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, vacating the sentence imposed thereon, and dismissing that count of the indictment; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel (see, People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708).

Criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree is a lesser-included offense of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree. Therefore, we dismiss that count of the indictment (see, People v Queen, 258 AD2d 480; People v Martinez, 209 AD2d 641).

The defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are without merit. Altman, J. P., McGinity, Luciano and H. Miller, JJ., concur.