People v Bedell
2014 NY Slip Op 00773 [114 AD3d 1153]
February 7, 2014
Appellate Division, Fourth Department
As corrected through Wednesday, March 26, 2014


The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vDemetrius Bedell, Appellant.

[*1]Anthony J. Lana, Buffalo, for defendant-appellant.

Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Matthew Dunham of counsel), forrespondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (John Lewis DeMarco, J.),rendered February 9, 2011. The judgment convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, ofcriminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, after a nonjurytrial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree (Penal Law§ 220.06 [1]). Defendant contends that defense counsel was ineffective for failingto move to suppress the currency found on defendant during a search incident to hisarrest, as well as a paper bag hidden near a guardrail at the end of a dead-end street thatcontained 13 "dime bags" of crack cocaine. Defendant failed to demonstrate that the "'motion, if made, would have been successful and that defense counsel's failure to makethat motion deprived him of meaningful representation' " (People v Bassett, 55 AD3d1434, 1437-1438 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 922 [2009]; see generallyPeople v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 709 [1988]).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see People vContes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we reject defendant's contention that theevidence is legally insufficient to establish that he possessed the cocaine with intent tosell it (see People vFreeman, 28 AD3d 1161, 1162 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 788[2006]; People v Smith, 217 AD2d 910, 911 [1995]; see generally People vBleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Contrary to defendant's further contention,viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crime in this nonjury trial (see People v Danielson, 9NY3d 342, 349 [2007]), we conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of theevidence (see generally Bleakley, 69 NY2d at 495). Present—Scudder,P.J., Fahey, Peradotto, Carni and Valentino, JJ.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.