People v. Cespedes
Docket Ind, No. 75803/23|Appeal No. 6411|Case No. 2025-00139|
Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research
- Filed
- Jurisdiction
- New York
- Court
- Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- Type
- Opinion
- Case type
- Criminal Appeal
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Citation
- 2026 NY Slip Op 02379
- Docket numbers
- Ind, No. 75803/23Appeal No6411Case No2025-00139
Appeal from a judgment of conviction, after a jury trial in Supreme Court, New York County, convicting defendant of first-degree criminal sale of a controlled substance.
Summary
The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed defendant Victor Jimenez Cespedes's conviction and eight-year sentence for criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree. The court reviewed the jury verdict and found it was not against the weight of the evidence, crediting the jury's credibility determinations. Key facts supporting conviction were that defendant entered an undercover officer's car carrying a box containing over 6,000 fentanyl pills, acted as the courier in a negotiated $25,000 transaction, and admitted he would receive $2,000. The court held these facts supported an inference that he knew the box's contents and rejected his testimonial denial.
Issues Decided
- Whether the jury's verdict was against the weight of the evidence.
- Whether circumstantial evidence supported an inference that defendant knew the contents of the box he carried.
- Whether the defendant's testimony sufficiently rebutted the inference of knowledge.
Court's Reasoning
The court deferred to the jury's credibility determinations and found no basis to disturb them. The physical and video evidence showing defendant carrying a box with over 6,000 fentanyl pills, his role as courier in a negotiated $25,000 transaction, and his admission he would receive $2,000 permitted the inference he knew what he possessed under controlling precedent and the statute. Because defendant's testimony conflicted with the video and did not adequately rebut that inference, the conviction was sustained.
Authorities Cited
- People v Danielson9 NY3d 342 (2007)
- People v Bleakley69 NY2d 490 (1987)
- People v Reisman29 NY2d 278 (1971)
Parties
- Appellant
- Victor Jimenez Cespedes
- Respondent
- The People of the State of New York
- Judge
- Daniel P. Conviser
- Attorney
- Jenay Nurse Guilford
- Attorney
- Margaret M. Crookston
Key Dates
- Decision date
- 2026-04-21
- Judgment rendered
- 2024-12-19
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Consider seeking leave to appeal
If the defendant wishes further review, counsel can file an application for leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals within the applicable deadline.
- 2
Evaluate post-conviction options
Defense counsel should assess grounds for collateral challenges, such as ineffective assistance or newly discovered evidence, and advise the client on habeas possibilities if state remedies are exhausted.
- 3
Prepare for sentencing/compliance
If any administrative or sentencing steps remain, counsel should ensure compliance with the sentence and advise the client about prison procedures and potential parole considerations.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide?
- The appellate court affirmed the conviction and eight-year sentence for first-degree criminal sale of a controlled substance.
- Why was the conviction upheld?
- Because the jury reasonably found that the defendant knowingly carried a box containing over 6,000 fentanyl pills based on video evidence, his role in the transaction, and his admission he would receive money.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- The decision directly affects the defendant, Victor Cespedes, whose conviction and sentence were upheld; it also affirms the trial court's handling of evidence and credibility findings.
- Can this decision be appealed further?
- The defendant may seek leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals, but the Appellate Division affirmed the conviction; further review is discretionary.
The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.
Full Filing Text
People v Cespedes - 2026 NY Slip Op 02379 People v Cespedes 2026 NY Slip Op 02379 April 21, 2026 Appellate Division, First Department The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Victor Jimenez Cespedes, Appellant. Decided and Entered: April 21, 2026 Ind, No. 75803/23|Appeal No. 6411|Case No. 2025-00139| Before: Renwick, P.J., Friedman, Gesmer, Pitt-Burke, Hagler, JJ. Jenay Nurse Guilford, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Jane Merrill of counsel), for appellant. Alvin L. Bragg, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Margaret M. Crookston of counsel), for respondent. Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel P. Conviser, J.), rendered December 19, 2024, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of eight years, unanimously affirmed. The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v Danielson , 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]; see also People v Baque , 43 NY3d26 [2024]). There is no basis upon which to disturb the jury's credibility determinations, which are entitled to deference ( People v Bleakley , 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). The evidence at trial established that defendant entered an undercover officer's car carrying a box that contained more than 6,000 fentanyl pills and acted as the courier for a negotiated drug transaction between that officer and a narcotics trafficker for a sum of $25,000, permitting the inference that defendant "kn[ew] what he possesse[d]" ( People v Reisman , 29 NY2d 278, 285 [1971], cert denied 405 US 1041 [1972]; see People v Green , 35 NY2d 437, 442-443 [1974]; Penal Law § 220.43[1]). Defendant's testimony failed to rebut that inference ( see People v Acosta , 174 AD2d 181, 184 [1st Dept 1992], lv denied 79 NY2d 1045 [1992]), and the jury reasonably rejected his claim that he was unaware of the contents of the box, particularly where his testimony conflicted with the video evidence, and he admitted that he would receive $2,000 after the exchange was completed. THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT. ENTERED: April 21, 2026