Court Opinion

ID: 9919878
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-18 22:56:57.570551+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:20:25.315849
License: Public Domain

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaughan, J.), rendered November 13, 1992, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The issue of the legal sufficiency of the evidence was not preserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; 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 (see, People v Herring, 83 NY2d 780; People v Ortiz, 76 NY2d 446; People v Ramos, 186 AD2d 446). 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]).
There was no reasonable view of the evidence which would warrant charging the jury on the agency defense (see, People v Herring, supra; People v Ortiz, supra; People v Windley, 78 AD2d 55). In addition, the court’s reasonable doubt charge did not diminish the People’s burden of proof (see, People v Russell, 266 NY 147; People v Grant, 132 AD2d 619; People v Rosa, 162 AD2d 257).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Mangano, P. J., Sullivan, Balletta and Miller, JJ., concur.