People v. Conklin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Conklin

102 A.D.2d 829, 476 N.Y.S.2d 602, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19010

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

DecidedJune 4, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 102 A.D.2d 829 (People v. Conklin) 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. Conklin, 102 A.D.2d 829, 476 N.Y.S.2d 602, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19010 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the County Court, Orange County (Ritter, J.), imposed July 28, 1981. 11 Sentence affirmed. 11 At sentencing defendant contested the People’s statement that he had previously been convicted of a felony (CPL 400.21). The People relied on a Pennsylvania judgment of conviction which was not properly certified (see CPLR 4540, subd [cl; People v Hines, 90 AD2d 621) and the testimony of a police officer who witnessed defendant’s conviction. While the officer’s testimony presents hearsay and best evidence problems, it was admitted without objection and was therefore properly considered by the County Court as proof of a prior conviction (see State v Jackson, 362 So 2d 522 [Lai; Bright v State, 585 SW2d 739 [Texb. Mollen, P. J., Lazer, Weinstein and Brown, JJ., concur.

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

— Appeal by defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the County Court, Orange County (Ritter, J.), imposed July 28, 1981. 11 Sentence affirmed. 11 At sentencing defendant contested the People’s statement that he had previously been convicted of a felony (CPL 400.21). The People relied on a Pennsylvania judgment of conviction which was not properly certified (see CPLR 4540, subd [cl; People v Hines, 90 AD2d 621) and the testimony of a police officer who witnessed defendant’s conviction. While the officer’s testimony presents hearsay and best evidence problems, it was admitted without objection and was therefore properly considered by the County Court as proof of a prior conviction (see State v Jackson, 362 So 2d 522 [Lai; Bright v State, 585 SW2d 739 [Texb. Mollen, P. J., Lazer, Weinstein and Brown, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

102 A.D.2d 829, 476 N.Y.S.2d 602, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19010, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-conklin-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack