People v. Billups

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Billups

200 A.D.2d 679, 606 N.Y.S.2d 760

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

DecidedJanuary 24, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 200 A.D.2d 679 (People v. Billups) 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. Billups, 200 A.D.2d 679, 606 N.Y.S.2d 760 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hentel, J.), rendered December 13, 1991, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Berkowitz, J.), of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

A police officer observed the defendant, alone on a street at night, engaging in a conversation with a person who pulled up in a car. The defendant then picked up something from under a nearby tree and handed it to the driver in exchange for currency. The officer walked over to the tree and observed a plastic bag containing vials of what appeared to be crack-cocaine. Upon discovering the contraband in plain view on a public street, the officer had probable cause to arrest the defendant (see, People v Banker, 187 AD2d 602; People v Guine, 173 AD2d 849; People v Smith, 143 AD2d 109).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

The defendant’s remaining contentions do not warrant reversal. Rosenblatt, J. P., Ritter, Copertino and Joy, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hentel, J.), rendered December 13, 1991, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Berkowitz, J.), of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

A police officer observed the defendant, alone on a street at night, engaging in a conversation with a person who pulled up in a car. The defendant then picked up something from under a nearby tree and handed it to the driver in exchange for currency. The officer walked over to the tree and observed a plastic bag containing vials of what appeared to be crack-cocaine. Upon discovering the contraband in plain view on a public street, the officer had probable cause to arrest the defendant (see, People v Banker, 187 AD2d 602; People v Guine, 173 AD2d 849; People v Smith, 143 AD2d 109).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

The defendant’s remaining contentions do not warrant reversal. Rosenblatt, J. P., Ritter, Copertino and Joy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

200 A.D.2d 679, 606 N.Y.S.2d 760, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-billups-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack