People v. Heavlin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Heavlin

58 A.D.2d 661, 395 N.Y.S.2d 521, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12757

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

DecidedJune 2, 1977

StatusPublished

This text of 58 A.D.2d 661 (People v. Heavlin) 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. Heavlin, 58 A.D.2d 661, 395 N.Y.S.2d 521, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12757 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from judgments of the County Court of Chemung County, rendered April 9, 1976, convicting defendant on his pleas of guilty of the crimes of criminal possession of stolen property in the second degree and burglary in the third degree. The propriety of defendant’s conviction for possessing stolen property is not challenged on this appeal and, insofar as the sentence therefor is concerned, we find no abuse of discretion committed by the trial court in imposing a term consistent with the plea negotiations and which defendant understood he would receive. As to the separate burglary conviction, we agree with the trial court’s determination that the search warrant was issued on sufficient probable cause and that the confession given by defendant following its execution was not obtained by any promise creating a substantial risk that he might falsely incriminate himself. The concurrent sentence for this conviction was likewise in accordance with the plea negotiations and we perceive no reason to disturb it. Judgments affirmed. Koreman, P. J., Greenblott, Kane, Mahoney and Main, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from judgments of the County Court of Chemung County, rendered April 9, 1976, convicting defendant on his pleas of guilty of the crimes of criminal possession of stolen property in the second degree and burglary in the third degree. The propriety of defendant’s conviction for possessing stolen property is not challenged on this appeal and, insofar as the sentence therefor is concerned, we find no abuse of discretion committed by the trial court in imposing a term consistent with the plea negotiations and which defendant understood he would receive. As to the separate burglary conviction, we agree with the trial court’s determination that the search warrant was issued on sufficient probable cause and that the confession given by defendant following its execution was not obtained by any promise creating a substantial risk that he might falsely incriminate himself. The concurrent sentence for this conviction was likewise in accordance with the plea negotiations and we perceive no reason to disturb it. Judgments affirmed. Koreman, P. J., Greenblott, Kane, Mahoney and Main, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

58 A.D.2d 661, 395 N.Y.S.2d 521, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12757, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-heavlin-nyappdiv-1977.