People v. Headley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Headley

219 A.D.2d 857, 632 N.Y.S.2d 1007, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10973

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

DecidedSeptember 29, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 219 A.D.2d 857 (People v. Headley) 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. Headley, 219 A.D.2d 857, 632 N.Y.S.2d 1007, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10973 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Upon our review of the record, we conclude that defendant’s motion to suppress the physical evidence was properly denied for reasons stated in the decision by the suppression court. The contention of defendant that he was denied the benefit of his plea bargain has not been preserved for our review (see, People v Moore, 155 AD2d 696). The record establishes that defendant agreed with the sentencing court’s final determination that the bargained for sentence was legally impossible, and neither objected to the sentence imposed as violative of the sentence commitment nor moved to vacate his plea (see, People v Ellis, 162 AD2d 701, lv denied 76 NY2d 892). (Appeal from Judgment of Onondaga County Court, Cunningham, J. — Criminal Possession Controlled Substance, [858]*8584th Degree.) Present — Lawton, J. P., Fallon, Callahan, Davis and Boehm, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Upon our review of the record, we conclude that defendant’s motion to suppress the physical evidence was properly denied for reasons stated in the decision by the suppression court. The contention of defendant that he was denied the benefit of his plea bargain has not been preserved for our review (see, People v Moore, 155 AD2d 696). The record establishes that defendant agreed with the sentencing court’s final determination that the bargained for sentence was legally impossible, and neither objected to the sentence imposed as violative of the sentence commitment nor moved to vacate his plea (see, People v Ellis, 162 AD2d 701, lv denied 76 NY2d 892). (Appeal from Judgment of Onondaga County Court, Cunningham, J. — Criminal Possession Controlled Substance, [858]*8584th Degree.) Present — Lawton, J. P., Fallon, Callahan, Davis and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

219 A.D.2d 857, 632 N.Y.S.2d 1007, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10973, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-headley-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack