People v. Goddard

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Goddard

277 A.D.2d 394, 716 N.Y.S.2d 331, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12169

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 20, 2000·Published

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowling, J.), rendered March 23, 1998, as amended May 6, 1998, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

[395]*395Ordered that the judgment, as amended, is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court properly denied suppression of a handgun and cocaine seized from him by the police (see, People v De Bour, 40 NY2d 210; People v Robinson, 271 AD2d 17; People v Ortiz, 265 AD2d 579; People v Silver, 178 AD2d 499).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Bracken, J. P., Ritter, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowling, J.), rendered March 23, 1998, as amended May 6, 1998, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

[395]*395Ordered that the judgment, as amended, is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court properly denied suppression of a handgun and cocaine seized from him by the police (see, People v De Bour, 40 NY2d 210; People v Robinson, 271 AD2d 17; People v Ortiz, 265 AD2d 579; People v Silver, 178 AD2d 499).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Bracken, J. P., Ritter, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.

People v. Goddard, 277 A.D.2d 394, 716 N.Y.S.2d 331, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12169 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

277 A.D.2d 394 (People v. Goddard) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related