| People v Heaney |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 06111 [75 AD3d 836] |
| July 15, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Vincent J.Heaney, Appellant. |
—[*1] Andrew J. Wylie, District Attorney, Plattsburgh (Chantelle Schember of counsel), forrespondent.
Mercure, J.P. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Clinton County (McGill, J.),rendered January 26, 2009, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crime of criminal sale ofmarihuana in the third degree.
Defendant was charged in an indictment with one count of criminal sale of marihuana in thethird degree stemming from a controlled drug purchase by law enforcement personnel who reliedupon a confidential informant (hereinafter CI). The investigators searched the CI and his car forcontraband and, finding none, provided him with buy money and a transmitter. They thenfollowed the CI to defendant's residence and waited nearby, observing the area and listening tothe broadcasted transaction taking place inside the residence. After the CI left defendant'sresidence, the investigators followed him to a prearranged location, where he and his car wereagain searched. The CI turned over a quantity of marihuana and the remaining $10 in buymoney. Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted as charged and sentenced, as a secondfelony offender, to a prison term of two years followed by two years of postrelease supervision.Defendant now appeals and we affirm.
Defendant's contention that his conviction was not based upon legally sufficient evidence isunpreserved due to his failure to make a particularized trial motion to dismiss, [*2]identifying the specific deficiencies now alleged (see People vGray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]; People v Burdick, 72 AD3d 1399, 1400-1401 [2010]; People v Cole, 35 AD3d 911, 912[2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 944 [2007]). Furthermore, after reviewing the evidence in aneutral light and according deference to the jury's ability to observe the witnesses and gaugetheir credibility, we are satisfied that defendant's conviction was not against the weight of theevidence (see People v Romero, 7NY3d 633, 643-644 [2006]; Peoplev Rolle, 72 AD3d 1393, 1396 [2010]). Although the CI's recollection of thesale—which occurred over two years prior to trial—was inconsistent in minorrespects from other evidence in the record, those discrepancies were explored at trial andsubmitted for the jury's consideration, and his testimony was not inherently incredible orimprobable (see People v Vargas,72 AD3d 1114, 1118 [2010]; People v Miles, 61 AD3d 1118, 1119 [2009], lv denied 12NY3d 918 [2009]). Moreover, the CI's description of events was amply corroborated by thetestimony of investigators, who had him under surveillance and confirmed that he entereddefendant's residence with no contraband and the buy money but exited it with marihuana, aswell as an audio recording in which the CI is heard counting out money to defendant (see People v Lawal, 73 AD3d1287, 1289 [2010]; People vGolden, 24 AD3d 806, 807 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 813 [2006]).
Defendant also argues, and the People concede, that County Court erroneously directed himto pay restitution for the buy money and an administrative surcharge (see Penal Law§ 60.27 [9]; § 220.00 [5]; Donnino, Practice Commentary, McKinney's Cons Lawsof NY, Book 39, Penal Law § 60.27). His remaining contentions—namely, thatCounty Court should have granted his request for new counsel and that the sentence imposedwas harsh and excessive—have been considered and found to be without merit.
Malone Jr., Kavanagh, Stein and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is modified,on the law, by deleting so much thereof as directed defendant to pay restitution and a 10%surcharge thereon to the Clinton County District Attorney's office/Adirondack Drug Task Force,and, as so modified, affirmed.