People v. Lantigua

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Lantigua

220 A.D.2d 261, 632 N.Y.S.2d 465, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10011

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

DecidedOctober 10, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 220 A.D.2d 261 (People v. Lantigua) 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. Lantigua, 220 A.D.2d 261, 632 N.Y.S.2d 465, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10011 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (James Leff, J.), rendered May 17, 1993, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, and sentencing him to time served, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s guilty plea was properly accepted. His allocution included a sufficient factual recitation, and his present claim that he may not have understood the element of his knowledge of the weight of the drugs is based on speculation. We have considered defendant’s claim that the arresting officer’s hearing testimony was patently tailored to meet constitutional objections and otherwise incredible, and find it to be without merit. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Ross, Asch and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (James Leff, J.), rendered May 17, 1993, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, and sentencing him to time served, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s guilty plea was properly accepted. His allocution included a sufficient factual recitation, and his present claim that he may not have understood the element of his knowledge of the weight of the drugs is based on speculation. We have considered defendant’s claim that the arresting officer’s hearing testimony was patently tailored to meet constitutional objections and otherwise incredible, and find it to be without merit. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Ross, Asch and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

220 A.D.2d 261, 632 N.Y.S.2d 465, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10011, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lantigua-nyappdiv-1995.