People v. Carrasco

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Carrasco

216 A.D.2d 908, 629 N.Y.S.2d 689

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

DecidedJune 9, 1995

DocketAppeal No. 2

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 216 A.D.2d 908 (People v. Carrasco) 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. Carrasco, 216 A.D.2d 908, 629 N.Y.S.2d 689 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that County Court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence seized during a warrantless search by the police. By pleading guilty before final determination of his suppression motion, defendant waived review of all issues raised in that motion (see, People v Fernandez, 67 NY2d 686, 688; People v Porter, 213 AD2d 1070; People v Letts, 210 AD2d 895). In any event, defendant failed in his motion papers to demonstrate a legitimate expectation of privacy in the premises to establish his standing to challenge the search (see, CPL 710.60; People v Mendoza, 82 NY2d 415, 429; see also, People v Ortiz, 83 NY2d 840, 842; People v Wesley, 73 NY2d 351, 358-359; People v Bencevi, 111 AD2d 397).

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Erie County Court, Drury, J.—Criminal Possession Controlled Substance, 2nd Degree.) Present—Pine, J. P., Lawton, Wesley, Callahan and Boehm, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that County Court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence seized during a warrantless search by the police. By pleading guilty before final determination of his suppression motion, defendant waived review of all issues raised in that motion (see, People v Fernandez, 67 NY2d 686, 688; People v Porter, 213 AD2d 1070; People v Letts, 210 AD2d 895). In any event, defendant failed in his motion papers to demonstrate a legitimate expectation of privacy in the premises to establish his standing to challenge the search (see, CPL 710.60; People v Mendoza, 82 NY2d 415, 429; see also, People v Ortiz, 83 NY2d 840, 842; People v Wesley, 73 NY2d 351, 358-359; People v Bencevi, 111 AD2d 397).

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Erie County Court, Drury, J.—Criminal Possession Controlled Substance, 2nd Degree.) Present—Pine, J. P., Lawton, Wesley, Callahan and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

216 A.D.2d 908, 629 N.Y.S.2d 689, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-carrasco-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack