People v. Cepeda

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Cepeda

269 A.D.2d 204, 703 N.Y.S.2d 718, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1306

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

DecidedFebruary 10, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 269 A.D.2d 204 (People v. Cepeda) 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. Cepeda, 269 A.D.2d 204, 703 N.Y.S.2d 718, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1306 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Allen Alpert, J.), rendered November 13, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 6 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s suppression motion was properly denied. Defendant never requested a hearing as to the probable cause for his arrest and never raised the issue during the hearings conducted. He cannot now raise the issue for the first time on appeal. In any event, from the testimony at the hearing, the only reasonable inference that may be drawn was that defendant was arrested on the basis of a detailed, accurate description radioed by the undercover officer to the entire field team (see, People v Gonzalez, 91 NY2d 909). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Mazzarelli, Ellerin, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Allen Alpert, J.), rendered November 13, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 6 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s suppression motion was properly denied. Defendant never requested a hearing as to the probable cause for his arrest and never raised the issue during the hearings conducted. He cannot now raise the issue for the first time on appeal. In any event, from the testimony at the hearing, the only reasonable inference that may be drawn was that defendant was arrested on the basis of a detailed, accurate description radioed by the undercover officer to the entire field team (see, People v Gonzalez, 91 NY2d 909). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Mazzarelli, Ellerin, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 A.D.2d 204, 703 N.Y.S.2d 718, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1306, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cepeda-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack