From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Yepes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jul 3, 1990
163 A.D.2d 19 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

July 3, 1990

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.).


Defendant was arrested during a buy-and-bust operation in which a codefendant arranged for the sale of 750 grams of cocaine to an undercover officer for $29,500. The defendant at one point helped carry a black bag which, evidence indicated, contained the cocaine. Defendant was not present during the exchange, which occurred in an apartment; at that time, he was on the street acting as a lookout while the sale took place.

The evidence of defendant's guilt was legally sufficient. Defendant has failed to demonstrate that no "valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences * * * could [have led] a rational person to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence at trial" (People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495). Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the People (People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621), defendant's guilt of aiding and abetting the sale was proved beyond a reasonable doubt. "Under all of the circumstances, the trier of fact reasonably could infer defendant's knowledge of and participation in the drug transaction" (People v. Dordal, 55 N.Y.2d 954, 956).

Defendant failed to preserve his challenge to the court's omission of a circumstantial evidence charge by requesting such a charge or by excepting to the instructions as given (CPL 470.05; People v. Ford, 66 N.Y.2d 428). In any event, we note that this case contained direct evidence. As such, no circumstantial evidence charge was required.

Finally, defendant asserts that his sentences were unduly harsh because codefendants who had pleaded guilty to lesser charges received more lenient sentences. While disparity in sentencing among codefendants does not, per se, warrant a reduction in defendant's sentence (People v. Jones, 39 N.Y.2d 694, 698), under all the circumstances of this case, we conclude that imposition of terms of 20 years to life would have been more appropriate exercises of the court's discretion, and we modify accordingly.

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Milonas, Rosenberger, Asch and Kassal, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Yepes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jul 3, 1990
163 A.D.2d 19 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

People v. Yepes

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. FERNANDO YEPES…

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

Date published: Jul 3, 1990

Citations

163 A.D.2d 19 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
558 N.Y.S.2d 15

Citing Cases

People v. Washington

Although the prosecutor did vouch for the undercover's credibility on a few occasions, the comments were not…

People v. Monje

After the transaction, both defendant and his accomplice were arrested and pre-recorded buy money as well as…