People v. Holman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Holman

88 A.D.2d 835, 451 N.Y.S.2d 381, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17147

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

DecidedJune 15, 1982

StatusPublished

This text of 88 A.D.2d 835 (People v. Holman) 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. Holman, 88 A.D.2d 835, 451 N.Y.S.2d 381, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17147 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rothwax, J.), rendered June 5,1980, convicting defendant-appellant, after his plea of guilty, of an attempt to commit criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree and sentencing him as a predicate felon to two to four years, affirmed. A suppression motion herein was denied on the ground that it had been abandoned by the defendant’s absconding. We do not reach the point raised on appeal — that the suppression order should be reversed, the case remanded for a decision on its merits and the appeal held in abeyance pending the decision on remand — for the reason that the suppression motion must be denied on its merits. The police officer’s affidavit established probable cause for the search warrant and its allegations were unimpeached by any showing by .the defendant. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Lupiano, Fein, Lynch and Asch, JJ.

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

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rothwax, J.), rendered June 5,1980, convicting defendant-appellant, after his plea of guilty, of an attempt to commit criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree and sentencing him as a predicate felon to two to four years, affirmed. A suppression motion herein was denied on the ground that it had been abandoned by the defendant’s absconding. We do not reach the point raised on appeal — that the suppression order should be reversed, the case remanded for a decision on its merits and the appeal held in abeyance pending the decision on remand — for the reason that the suppression motion must be denied on its merits. The police officer’s affidavit established probable cause for the search warrant and its allegations were unimpeached by any showing by .the defendant. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Lupiano, Fein, Lynch and Asch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 A.D.2d 835, 451 N.Y.S.2d 381, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17147, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-holman-nyappdiv-1982.