People v. Edmonds

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Edmonds

5 A.D.3d 203, 772 N.Y.S.2d 814, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2575

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

DecidedMarch 11, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 5 A.D.3d 203 (People v. Edmonds) 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. Edmonds, 5 A.D.3d 203, 772 N.Y.S.2d 814, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2575 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bruce Allen, J.), rendered June 27, 2001, convicting defendant, upon his plea [204]*204of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 5½ to 11 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion without a hearing. In response to defendant’s allegation that he was lawfully minding his business and that his arrest “without a warrant” lacked probable cause, the People submitted proof that at the time of defendant’s arrest there had existed an outstanding warrant for his arrest for violation of parole. Additionally, both the felony complaint and the voluntary disclosure form clearly stated that all the officers involved in the arrest were from the Warrant Section. In view of this information, defendant’s failure to controvert that he was apprehended pursuant to the outstanding warrant resulted in a failure to allege a legal ground for suppression, or to raise a factual issue requiring a hearing (see CPL 710.60 [3]; People v Mendoza, 82 NY2d 415 [1993]; People v Howell, 2 AD3d 258 [2003]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Sullivan, Ellerin and Friedman, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bruce Allen, J.), rendered June 27, 2001, convicting defendant, upon his plea [204]*204of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 5½ to 11 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion without a hearing. In response to defendant’s allegation that he was lawfully minding his business and that his arrest “without a warrant” lacked probable cause, the People submitted proof that at the time of defendant’s arrest there had existed an outstanding warrant for his arrest for violation of parole. Additionally, both the felony complaint and the voluntary disclosure form clearly stated that all the officers involved in the arrest were from the Warrant Section. In view of this information, defendant’s failure to controvert that he was apprehended pursuant to the outstanding warrant resulted in a failure to allege a legal ground for suppression, or to raise a factual issue requiring a hearing (see CPL 710.60 [3]; People v Mendoza, 82 NY2d 415 [1993]; People v Howell, 2 AD3d 258 [2003]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Sullivan, Ellerin and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 A.D.3d 203, 772 N.Y.S.2d 814, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2575, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-edmonds-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack