People v. Dillwork

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Dillwork

1 A.D.2d 1050, 767 N.Y.S.2d 715, 1 A.D.3d 1050, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12324

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

DecidedNovember 21, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 1 A.D.2d 1050 (People v. Dillwork) 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. Dillwork, 1 A.D.2d 1050, 767 N.Y.S.2d 715, 1 A.D.3d 1050, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12324 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County (Mark, J.), entered September 11, 2001, convicting defendant after a jury trial of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment entered upon a jury verdict convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.39 [1]). Contrary to the contention of defendant, his motion to suppress identification testimony was properly denied without a hearing. “The information presented to the motion court clearly established that the viewing of defendant by the observing officer in this observation sale case was a confirmatory identification for which no Wade hearing was required” (People v Davis, 289 AD2d 134, 135 [2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 753 [2002]). The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Pine, J.P, Wisner, Hurlbutt, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County (Mark, J.), entered September 11, 2001, convicting defendant after a jury trial of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment entered upon a jury verdict convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.39 [1]). Contrary to the contention of defendant, his motion to suppress identification testimony was properly denied without a hearing. “The information presented to the motion court clearly established that the viewing of defendant by the observing officer in this observation sale case was a confirmatory identification for which no Wade hearing was required” (People v Davis, 289 AD2d 134, 135 [2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 753 [2002]). The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Pine, J.P, Wisner, Hurlbutt, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 A.D.2d 1050, 767 N.Y.S.2d 715, 1 A.D.3d 1050, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12324, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-dillwork-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack