People v. Griswold

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Griswold

2017 NY Slip Op 8128, 155 A.D.3d 1658, 64 N.Y.S.3d 450

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

DecidedNovember 17, 2017

Docket1204 KA 15-00160

StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 8128 (People v. Griswold) 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. Griswold, 2017 NY Slip Op 8128, 155 A.D.3d 1658, 64 N.Y.S.3d 450 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Onondaga County Court (Anthony F. Aloi, J.), rendered August 21, 2014. The judgment convicted defendant upon his plea of guilty of, inter alia, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.

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

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his guilty plea of, inter alia, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03 [3]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, we conclude that County Court did not err in refusing to suppress evidence obtained during the execution of a search warrant inasmuch as the search warrant was issued with probable cause. “Probable cause does not require proof sufficient to warrant a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt but[, rather, it] merely [requires] information sufficient to support a reasonable belief that an offense has been or is being committed or that the evidence of a crime may be found in a certain place” (People v Bigelow, 66 NY2d 417, 423 [1985]). Further, “[p]robable cause may be supplied, in whole or part, through hearsay information” (id.). The record establishes that the confidential informant had some basis of knowledge, and the confidential informant’s reliability was established because his statement to the police was corroborated by independently verified details about the shooting that precipitated the search warrant (see People v DiFalco, 80 NY2d 693, 696-697 [1993]; People v Elwell, 50 NY2d 231, 237 [1980]).

Contrary to defendant’s further contention, the bargained-for sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

Present—Smith, J.P., Carni, Curran and Winslow, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Onondaga County Court (Anthony F. Aloi, J.), rendered August 21, 2014. The judgment convicted defendant upon his plea of guilty of, inter alia, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.

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

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his guilty plea of, inter alia, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03 [3]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, we conclude that County Court did not err in refusing to suppress evidence obtained during the execution of a search warrant inasmuch as the search warrant was issued with probable cause. “Probable cause does not require proof sufficient to warrant a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt but[, rather, it] merely [requires] information sufficient to support a reasonable belief that an offense has been or is being committed or that the evidence of a crime may be found in a certain place” (People v Bigelow, 66 NY2d 417, 423 [1985]). Further, “[p]robable cause may be supplied, in whole or part, through hearsay information” (id.). The record establishes that the confidential informant had some basis of knowledge, and the confidential informant’s reliability was established because his statement to the police was corroborated by independently verified details about the shooting that precipitated the search warrant (see People v DiFalco, 80 NY2d 693, 696-697 [1993]; People v Elwell, 50 NY2d 231, 237 [1980]).

Contrary to defendant’s further contention, the bargained-for sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

Present—Smith, J.P., Carni, Curran and Winslow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 8128, 155 A.D.3d 1658, 64 N.Y.S.3d 450, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-griswold-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack