People v Glover (Ronald)

[*1] People v Glover (Ronald) 2007 NY Slip Op 52432(U) [18 Misc 3d 128(A)] Decided on December 21, 2007 Appellate Term, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on December 21, 2007
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., GOLIA and RIOS, JJ
2005-1914 K CR.

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Ronald Glover, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Kings County (James M. Burke, J.), rendered November 17, 2005. The judgment convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, of criminal possession of marihuana in the fifth degree.

Judgment of conviction affirmed.

Upon a review of the record on appeal, we are of the opinion that the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), was legally sufficient to establish defendant's guilt of criminal possession of marihuana in the fifth degree (Penal Law § 221.10 [1]). We note that, contrary to defendant's contention, the testing of the randomly selected Ziploc glassine
bag was sufficient to establish the contents of the remaining bags (see People v Wilcox, 198 AD2d 544, 545 [1993]; People v Thurman, 179 AD2d 382 [1992]).

Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15 [5]). It is well settled that the credibility of witnesses is a question of fact, and the resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded the evidence presented, is to be decided by the trier of fact, which had the opportunity to see and hear the witnesses (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]). The determination of the trier of fact should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see People v Garafolo, 44 AD2d 86, 88 [1974]). [*2]

In view of the foregoing, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., Golia and Rios, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: December 21, 2007