People v. De Luca

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. De Luca

54 A.D.2d 1061, 388 N.Y.S.2d 710, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15028

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

DecidedNovember 24, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 54 A.D.2d 1061 (People v. De Luca) 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. De Luca, 54 A.D.2d 1061, 388 N.Y.S.2d 710, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15028 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County, rendered December 19, 1975, convicting defendant on his plea of guilty of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the sixth degree. Defendant contends that his sentence to an indeterminate sentence not to exceed four years was excessive. He also contends, inter alia, that his motion to quash the search warrant and to suppress evidence seized in the search conducted under said warrant was improperly denied. In support of his appeal on the denial of his suppression motion, defendant contends that the affidavit on which the application was based was insufficient to establish probable cause to believe that the specified property would be found upon the premises and persons designated therein. We disagree. His contention that the information of the confidential informants was stale is without merit. Investigator Ruth stated in his application that his conversations [1062]*1062with his informants occurred during the latter part of April concerning a course of conduct of continuing sale of drugs and was acted upon by the second day of May in the procurement of the search warrant. Such information was sufficiently fresh to warrant the issuance of a search warrant. The first informant’s reliability was adequately established by his information given against penal interest, by his usefulness in a prior arrest, and by the affiant’s personal observation of the odor of marijuana smoke emanating from the premises designated by the first informant. Likewise, the second informant’s reliability was adequately established by his past usefulness leading to the arrest and conviction in two prior cases (People v Montague, 19 NY2d 121, 122; People v Rogers, 15 NY2d 422). We find no merit in defendant’s contention that the sentence was excessive. Judgment affirmed. Greenblott, J. P., Sweeney, Kane, Mahoney and Main, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County, rendered December 19, 1975, convicting defendant on his plea of guilty of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the sixth degree. Defendant contends that his sentence to an indeterminate sentence not to exceed four years was excessive. He also contends, inter alia, that his motion to quash the search warrant and to suppress evidence seized in the search conducted under said warrant was improperly denied. In support of his appeal on the denial of his suppression motion, defendant contends that the affidavit on which the application was based was insufficient to establish probable cause to believe that the specified property would be found upon the premises and persons designated therein. We disagree. His contention that the information of the confidential informants was stale is without merit. Investigator Ruth stated in his application that his conversations [1062]*1062with his informants occurred during the latter part of April concerning a course of conduct of continuing sale of drugs and was acted upon by the second day of May in the procurement of the search warrant. Such information was sufficiently fresh to warrant the issuance of a search warrant. The first informant’s reliability was adequately established by his information given against penal interest, by his usefulness in a prior arrest, and by the affiant’s personal observation of the odor of marijuana smoke emanating from the premises designated by the first informant. Likewise, the second informant’s reliability was adequately established by his past usefulness leading to the arrest and conviction in two prior cases (People v Montague, 19 NY2d 121, 122; People v Rogers, 15 NY2d 422). We find no merit in defendant’s contention that the sentence was excessive. Judgment affirmed. Greenblott, J. P., Sweeney, Kane, Mahoney and Main, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 A.D.2d 1061, 388 N.Y.S.2d 710, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15028, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-de-luca-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack