People v. Beasly

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Beasly

24 A.D.3d 155, 806 N.Y.S.2d 16

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 6, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 24 A.D.3d 155 (People v. Beasly) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Beasly, 24 A.D.3d 155, 806 N.Y.S.2d 16 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

JKudgement, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berkman, J.), rendered September 2, 2003, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 272 to 5 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant made insufficient factual allegations to warrant a hearing on his motion to suppress evidence (see People v Valentino, 254 AD2d 185 [1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 1054 [1999]). Defendant did not allege facts establishing state action of any kind, or a reasonable expectation of privacy, and there were no disputed factual issues warranting a hearing. Moreover, defendant made no additional submissions despite the court’s invitation to do so.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Mazzarelli, J.E, Marlow, Williams, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

JKudgement, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berkman, J.), rendered September 2, 2003, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 272 to 5 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant made insufficient factual allegations to warrant a hearing on his motion to suppress evidence (see People v Valentino, 254 AD2d 185 [1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 1054 [1999]). Defendant did not allege facts establishing state action of any kind, or a reasonable expectation of privacy, and there were no disputed factual issues warranting a hearing. Moreover, defendant made no additional submissions despite the court’s invitation to do so.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Mazzarelli, J.E, Marlow, Williams, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 A.D.3d 155, 806 N.Y.S.2d 16, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-beasly-nyappdiv-2005.