Appeals court reserves decision in case targeting drug operation

A state appeals court has sent a drug-related case back to the lower court for a hearing.

Defendant Robert Grayson was convicted before state Supreme Court Justice Alex R. Renzi in January 2017 of second-degree conspiracy, first-degree criminal sale of a controlled substance, second-degree criminal sale of a controlled substance, and three counts of third-degree criminal possession of a controlled substance.

Grayson appealed, and the Appellate Division of state Supreme Court, Fourth Department, recently reserved the decision and sent the case back to Supreme Court.

Grayson was convicted after a jury trial with three co-defendants as a result of his participation in a multi-level drug operation.

Grayson’s appellate lawyer, Bridget L. Field, argued that the conviction was not supported by legally sufficient evidence.

“We conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence,” the court wrote.

“Defendant failed to object to the allegedly improper remarks made by the prosecutor during opening and closing statements, and thus failed to preserve for our review his contention that he was denied a fair trial by those instances of alleged prosecutorial misconduct,” the court wrote.

The court also ruled that the “defense counsel’s failure to object to the prosecutor’s allegedly improper comments did not deprive defendant of effective assistance of counsel inasmuch as those comments did not constitute prosecutorial misconduct,” the court ruled.

“We also reject defendant’s contention that defense counsel was ineffective in failing to object to the testimony of a prosecution witness interpreting the meaning of language used in recorded telephone calls,” the Fourth Department wrote.

“We conclude that defendant received meaningful representation,” the court ruled.

The Fourth Department also rejected the defense claim that the judge should have instructed the jury on a multiple conspiracies charge.

The court ruled that there was no reasonable view of the evidence that there was any conspiracy other than the single conspiracy charged in the indictment.

But the court did agree with the defense that Renzi should have held a hearing before denying the defense motion to set aside the verdict.

Grayson’s contention is identical to that raised by his co-defendant on his appeal, the court wrote.

“While his codefendant was afforded a hearing upon remittal by this Court, defendant was not afforded the opportunity to participate in that hearing,” the court ruled.

They court sent the case back to Supreme Court “for a determination on defendant’s request for a hearing on defendant’s CPL 330.30 motion.”

[email protected] / (585) 232-2035