People v Blunt

People v Blunt 2013 NY Slip Op 07119 Decided on October 31, 2013 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on October 31, 2013
Mazzarelli, J.P., Renwick, DeGrasse, Feinman, Gische, JJ.
3889/10

[*1]10921 The People of the State of New York, Ind. Respondent,

v

Samuel Blunt, Defendant-Appellant.




Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York
(Bruce D. Austern of counsel), for appellant.
Samuel Blunt, appellant pro se.
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Caleb
Kruckenberg of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. McLaughlin, J.), rendered April 26, 2011, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first and third degrees, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 13 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant's request for an instruction on the affirmative defense of entrapment. There was no reasonable view of the evidence, viewed most favorably to defendant, that the police actively induced or encouraged him commit the crime, or that any police conduct, including their use of a confidential informant who was defendant's childhood friend, created a substantial risk that defendant would commit the crime although not otherwise disposed to do so (see Penal Law § 40.05; People v Brown, 82 NY2d 869, 871-872 [1993]; People v Butts, 72 NY2d 746, 750 [1988]). The record demonstrates that the police merely afforded defendant the opportunity to commit the crime, that he was disposed to commit it, and [*2]that he engaged in salesman-like behavior. Defendant's own testimony tended to negate the elements of the entrapment defense.

We have considered and rejected defendant's pro se claims.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: OCTOBER 31, 2013

CLERK