People v. Downing

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Downing

217 A.D.2d 1009, 631 N.Y.S.2d 274, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8461

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

DecidedJuly 14, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 217 A.D.2d 1009 (People v. Downing) 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. Downing, 217 A.D.2d 1009, 631 N.Y.S.2d 274, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8461 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him of robbery in the second degree, defendant contends that his statements to the police and the evidence seized should have been suppressed as fruits of an illegal arrest not based on probable cause. That contention lacks merit. The record supports the hearing court’s determination that the police had probable cause to arrest defendant (see generally, People v Bigelow, 66 NY2d 417; People v Carrasquillo, 54 NY2d 248).

Defendant further contends that this Court should grant him youthful offender treatment. We disagree. Defendant was sentenced in accordance with the plea and sentence agreement, and there is no basis in the record for this Court, in the exercise of its discretion, to grant defendant youthful offender [1010]*1010treatment (see, People v Jones, 207 AD2d 1024, lv denied 84 NY2d 937; cf., People v Shrubsall, 167 AD2d 929). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Wisner, J.— Robbery, 2nd Degree.) Present—Lawton, J. P., Wesley, Doerr, Davis and Boehm, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him of robbery in the second degree, defendant contends that his statements to the police and the evidence seized should have been suppressed as fruits of an illegal arrest not based on probable cause. That contention lacks merit. The record supports the hearing court’s determination that the police had probable cause to arrest defendant (see generally, People v Bigelow, 66 NY2d 417; People v Carrasquillo, 54 NY2d 248).

Defendant further contends that this Court should grant him youthful offender treatment. We disagree. Defendant was sentenced in accordance with the plea and sentence agreement, and there is no basis in the record for this Court, in the exercise of its discretion, to grant defendant youthful offender [1010]*1010treatment (see, People v Jones, 207 AD2d 1024, lv denied 84 NY2d 937; cf., People v Shrubsall, 167 AD2d 929). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Wisner, J.— Robbery, 2nd Degree.) Present—Lawton, J. P., Wesley, Doerr, Davis and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

217 A.D.2d 1009, 631 N.Y.S.2d 274, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8461, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-downing-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack