People v. Coles

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Coles

275 A.D.2d 995, 715 N.Y.S.2d 198, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9704

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

DecidedSeptember 29, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 275 A.D.2d 995 (People v. Coles) 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. Coles, 275 A.D.2d 995, 715 N.Y.S.2d 198, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9704 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a plea of guilty of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16 [1]). His sole contention is that County Court erred in denying his suppression motion because there was an insufficient basis for issuance of the warrant to search the apartment at 307 Cedarwood Terrace. We disagree. Reviewing the warrant application “in the clear light of everyday experience” and according it “all reasonable inferences” (People v Hanlon, 36 NY2d 549, 559), we conclude that it established probable cause to believe that a search of the apartment would result in evidence of drug activity (see, People v McLaughlin, 269 AD2d 858, lv denied 95 NY2d 800; People v Martin, 163 AD2d 865). (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Connell, J. — Criminal Possession Controlled Substance, 3rd Degree.) Present — Green, J. P., Hayes, Hurlbutt, Balio and Lawton, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a plea of guilty of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16 [1]). His sole contention is that County Court erred in denying his suppression motion because there was an insufficient basis for issuance of the warrant to search the apartment at 307 Cedarwood Terrace. We disagree. Reviewing the warrant application “in the clear light of everyday experience” and according it “all reasonable inferences” (People v Hanlon, 36 NY2d 549, 559), we conclude that it established probable cause to believe that a search of the apartment would result in evidence of drug activity (see, People v McLaughlin, 269 AD2d 858, lv denied 95 NY2d 800; People v Martin, 163 AD2d 865). (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Connell, J. — Criminal Possession Controlled Substance, 3rd Degree.) Present — Green, J. P., Hayes, Hurlbutt, Balio and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 A.D.2d 995, 715 N.Y.S.2d 198, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9704, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-coles-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack