People v. Ivey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ivey

138 A.D.3d 574, 28 N.Y.S.3d 605

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

DecidedApril 21, 2016

Docket6058/10 890 889

StatusPublished

This text of 138 A.D.3d 574 (People v. Ivey) 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. Ivey, 138 A.D.3d 574, 28 N.Y.S.3d 605 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment of Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel P. Conviser, J., at suppression hearing; Charles H. Solomon, J., at plea and sentencing), rendered May 8, 2012, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of five years, and order (sarnie court, Charles H. Solomon, J.), entered on or about June 3, 2014, which denied defendant’s CPL 440.20 motion to set aside the sentence, unanimously affirmed.

The hearing court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. There is no basis for disturbing the court’s credibility determinations (see People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]). The record supports all of the court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, including those relating to the plain view and inventory search doctrines.

Defendant was properly sentenced as a second felony offender based on a Pennsylvania drug conviction, and the court properly denied defendant’s CPL 440.20 motion challenging that adjudication. The court properly examined the accusatory instrument because the Pennsylvania statute criminalizes several discrete acts, not all of which would constitute felonies in New York (see generally People v Jurgins, 26 NY3d 607, 613-614 [2015]). That document reveals that the Pennsylvania conviction involved cocaine and was the equivalent of a New York felony (see People v Diaz, 115 AD3d 483 [1st Dept 2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 1036 [2014]).

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Saxe, Gische and Kahn, JJ.

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

Judgment of Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel P. Conviser, J., at suppression hearing; Charles H. Solomon, J., at plea and sentencing), rendered May 8, 2012, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of five years, and order (sarnie court, Charles H. Solomon, J.), entered on or about June 3, 2014, which denied defendant’s CPL 440.20 motion to set aside the sentence, unanimously affirmed.

The hearing court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. There is no basis for disturbing the court’s credibility determinations (see People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]). The record supports all of the court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, including those relating to the plain view and inventory search doctrines.

Defendant was properly sentenced as a second felony offender based on a Pennsylvania drug conviction, and the court properly denied defendant’s CPL 440.20 motion challenging that adjudication. The court properly examined the accusatory instrument because the Pennsylvania statute criminalizes several discrete acts, not all of which would constitute felonies in New York (see generally People v Jurgins, 26 NY3d 607, 613-614 [2015]). That document reveals that the Pennsylvania conviction involved cocaine and was the equivalent of a New York felony (see People v Diaz, 115 AD3d 483 [1st Dept 2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 1036 [2014]).

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Saxe, Gische and Kahn, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 A.D.3d 574, 28 N.Y.S.3d 605, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ivey-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack