PEOPLE, res, v. AKIL PARKS, def-ap

9588. PEOPLE, res, v. AKIL PARKS, def-ap — Richard M. Greenberg, Office of the Appellate Defender, New York (Rosemary Herbert of counsel), and Alston & Bird LLP, New York (Carolyn O'Leary of counsel), for ap — Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Sheila O'Shea of counsel), for res — Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Wayne M. Ozzi, J.), rendered August 24, 2010, as amended September 2, 2010, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third and fifth degrees, criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree, unlawfully dealing with a child in the first degree, criminal possession of marijuana in the fifth degree and unlawful possession of marijuana, and sentencing him, as a second felony drug offender whose prior felony conviction was a violent felony, to an aggregate term of seven years, unanimously affirmed.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

9588. PEOPLE, res, v. AKIL PARKS, def-ap — Richard M. Greenberg, Office of the Appellate Defender, New York (Rosemary Herbert of counsel), and Alston & Bird LLP, New York (Carolyn O’Leary of counsel), for ap — Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Sheila O’Shea of counsel), for res — Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Wayne M. Ozzi, J.), rendered August 24, 2010, as amended September 2, 2010, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third and fifth degrees, criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree, unlawfully dealing with a child in the first degree, criminal possession of marijuana in the fifth degree and unlawful possession of marijuana, and sentencing him, as a second felony drug offender whose prior felony conviction was a violent felony, to an aggregate term of seven years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s credibility determinations, including its evaluation of alleged inconsistencies in testimony. The police testimony leads to the inescapable conclusion that defendant threw a bag out of a window during the execution of a search warrant, and that this was the same bag that was recovered from a roof below the window and found to contain drugs.

PEOPLE, res, v. AKIL PARKS, def-ap

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal