From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Rizo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 15, 1991
169 A.D.2d 491 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

January 15, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Edward McLaughlin, J.).


Investigation of defendant's wholesale cocaine trafficking led to the seizure of over 2,100 kilograms of cocaine and over $2 million. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, and giving the People the benefit of every reasonable inference to be drawn therefrom (People v Way, 59 N.Y.2d 361), we find no merit to defendant's claim that the evidence was not legally sufficient to support his conviction for criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree in connection with the August 11th transaction. It is not necessary for each piece of circumstantial evidence to point only to the hypothesis of guilt. (Cf., People v White, 41 A.D.2d 629, affd 33 N.Y.2d 996.)

We also find no merit, as we did on the appeal by codefendant Echevarry, to defendant's claim that the August 11th transfer of cocaine to a coconspirator did not constitute the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree. (People v Echevarry, 165 A.D.2d 730.)

Defendant's arrest on August 20th for the August 11th transaction was clearly supported by probable cause. The record establishes the defendant's involvement in the August 11th transaction.

Defendant was properly sentenced. The possession charges stemming from the August 11th transaction do not flow directly from the sale. (Compare, People v Haxhijaj, 99 A.D.2d 973, with People v Snyder, 154 A.D.2d 269, 270, lv denied 75 N.Y.2d 776.) In the present case, defendant's guilt of the sale charge did not depend on his possession of the cocaine. (See, People v Gaul, 63 A.D.2d 563.) Accordingly, the trial court was not obligated to dismiss the noninclusory lesser possession counts. Also, the trial court did not err by imposing a consecutive term on the conspiracy count (People v Day, 73 N.Y.2d 208), and the record is sufficiently clear that defendant received concurrent sentences on the August 11th possessory crimes.

Concur — Carro, J.P., Ellerin, Ross, Asch and Kassal, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Rizo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 15, 1991
169 A.D.2d 491 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

People v. Rizo

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. HERNANDO RIZO…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Jan 15, 1991

Citations

169 A.D.2d 491 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
564 N.Y.S.2d 363

Citing Cases

People v. Valencia

Further, we are not persuaded that County Court erred in imposing consecutive sentences on the convictions…

People v. Ortiz

These activities supplied sufficient information to support a reasonable belief that the defendant was an…