People v. Burke

148 A.D.2d 993, 540 N.Y.S.2d 220, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2684
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in People v. Burke. Read the opinion of the Court — 176 A.D.2d 1000

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree in satisfaction of indictment No. 87-112 and to criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree in satisfaction of indictment No. 87-154. On appeal, defendant contends that the suppression court improperly precluded inquiry into probable cause for the search warrant which preceded indictment No. 87-112. We find no error. Defendant failed to raise this issue in his motion papers; thus, the suppression court did not err in precluding inquiry (see, CPL 710.20 [1]; 710.60 [1]; 710.70 [3]; People v Coleman, 56 NY2d 269, 274). We have examined defendant’s other contentions and we find them to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Oneida County Court, Murad, J. — criminal possession of controlled substance, second degree.) Present — Dillon J. P., Callahan, Doerr, Pine and Lawton, JJ.

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

People v. Burke, 148 A.D.2d 993, 540 N.Y.S.2d 220, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2684 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

148 A.D.2d 993 (People v. Burke) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Coleman
436 N.E.2d 1307 (New York Court of Appeals, 1982)