People v Wilson

Annotate this Case
People v Wilson 2008 NY Slip Op 09461 [57 AD3d 228] December 2, 2008 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, February 11, 2009

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v
Michael Wilson, Appellant.

—[*1] Richard M. Greenberg, Office of the Appellate Defender, New York (Sara Gurwitch of counsel), for appellant.

Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York (Christopher P. Marinelli of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bonnie G. Wittner, J.), rendered January 16, 2007, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of conspiracy in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 7 to 21 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). The evidence established that defendant was part of the charged conspiracy, and that he was not merely an independent dealer who happened to obtain his supply of drugs from the conspirators. There was specific evidence that defendant was personally involved in preparing drugs for sale and providing them to street-level dealers. Defendant's arguments on this issue are similar to arguments this Court rejected on a codefendant's appeal (see People v Council, 52 AD3d 222 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 735 [2008]).

Defendant's statutory double jeopardy claim is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find it without merit (see Matter of Robinson v Snyder, 259 AD2d 280 [1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 810 [1999]). To the extent that defendant is raising an ineffective assistance of counsel claim regarding this issue, that claim is [*2]also without merit.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Tom, J.P., Nardelli, McGuire, Acosta and DeGrasse, JJ.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.