SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

749 

KA 09-00194 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, GREEN, AND GORSKI, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JEROME T. CISSON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

DONALD R. GERACE, UTICA, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

SCOTT D. MCNAMARA, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, UTICA (STEVEN G. COX OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Oneida County Court (Barry M.

Donalty, J.), rendered November 19, 2008. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon a jury verdict, of criminal possession of a controlled

substance in the third degree (two counts) and criminal possession of

a controlled substance in the seventh degree (three counts). 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him

upon a jury verdict of two counts of criminal possession of a

controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16 [1]) and

three counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the

seventh degree (§ 220.03). We reject defendant’s contention that

County Court erred in granting his request to proceed pro se. The

request was unequivocal, and the court engaged in the requisite

searching inquiry to ensure that defendant’s waiver of the right to

counsel was knowing, voluntary and intelligent (see People v Herman,

78 AD3d 1686, 1686-1687, lv denied 16 NY3d 831; People v Clark, 42

AD3d 957, 957-958, lv denied 9 NY3d 960). Indeed, we note that

“[d]efendant’s age, experience, education, prior exposure to the

criminal justice system, firmness in his decision to represent

himself, and performance in representing himself all indicate a

knowing waiver” (People v Edwards, 140 AD2d 959, 960, lv denied 72

NY2d 915, 918, 1043, 1045). In addition, the record establishes that

“[d]efendant had the benefit of standby counsel throughout the

proceedings and proceeded at his own peril, fully aware of the

consequences of his chosen course” (People v Cusamano, 22 AD3d 427,

428, lv denied 6 NY3d 775).

Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contentions that

the court erred in admitting in evidence the expert testimony of an

undercover narcotics officer and in failing to issue a limiting
-2- 749 

KA 09-00194 

instruction with respect to that testimony (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People

v Recore, 56 AD3d 1233, 1234-1235, lv denied 12 NY3d 761), and we

decline to exercise our power to review those contentions as a matter

of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). 

Defendant further contends that his conviction of criminal possession

of a controlled substance in the third degree is not supported by

legally sufficient evidence because the People failed to establish his

intent to sell. Defendant also failed to preserve that contention for

our review, inasmuch as he made only a general motion for a trial

order of dismissal at the close of evidence (see People v Salaam, 46

AD3d 1130, 1131, lv denied 10 NY3d 816). Finally, the record does not

support defendant’s contention that he was denied his right to present

a defense, and we conclude that the sentence is not unduly harsh or

severe.

Entered: June 10, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan

Clerk of the Court