People v. Charles

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Charles

247 A.D.2d 245, 668 N.Y.S.2d 366, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1071

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

DecidedFebruary 10, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 247 A.D.2d 245 (People v. Charles) 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. Charles, 247 A.D.2d 245, 668 N.Y.S.2d 366, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1071 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel FitzGerald, J., at suppression hearing; Alfred Donati, J., at plea and sentencing), rendered August 29, 1995, convicting defendant of criminal possession 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.

The issues raised by defendant regarding the credibility of the testifying officer were properly placed before the suppression hearing court and we find no reason to disturb its findings (People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761). Reduction of defendant’s sentence is not warranted since defendant violated all three terms of the conditional plea agreement and the enhanced sentence was not an abuse of discretion.

Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel FitzGerald, J., at suppression hearing; Alfred Donati, J., at plea and sentencing), rendered August 29, 1995, convicting defendant of criminal possession 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.

The issues raised by defendant regarding the credibility of the testifying officer were properly placed before the suppression hearing court and we find no reason to disturb its findings (People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761). Reduction of defendant’s sentence is not warranted since defendant violated all three terms of the conditional plea agreement and the enhanced sentence was not an abuse of discretion.

Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

247 A.D.2d 245, 668 N.Y.S.2d 366, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1071, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-charles-nyappdiv-1998.