People v. Lugo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Lugo

281 A.D.2d 957, 722 N.Y.S.2d 210, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2890

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

DecidedMarch 21, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 281 A.D.2d 957 (People v. Lugo) 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. Lugo, 281 A.D.2d 957, 722 N.Y.S.2d 210, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2890 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon a plea of guilty of four counts of robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15 [4]), defendant contends that County Court erred in denying his motion to suppress his statements to the police because they were not voluntarily made. We disagree (see, People v Anthony, 24 NY2d 696, 701-702). Defendant’s further contention that the statements should have been suppressed because they were illegally taken without an arrest warrant and without probable cause (see, Payton v New York, 445 US 573, 576; Dunaway v New York, 442 US 200, 216-217) is not preserved for our review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]). The sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Marks, J.— Robbery, 1st Degree.) Present — Pine, J. P., Hayes, Hurlbutt, Scudder and Lawton, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon a plea of guilty of four counts of robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15 [4]), defendant contends that County Court erred in denying his motion to suppress his statements to the police because they were not voluntarily made. We disagree (see, People v Anthony, 24 NY2d 696, 701-702). Defendant’s further contention that the statements should have been suppressed because they were illegally taken without an arrest warrant and without probable cause (see, Payton v New York, 445 US 573, 576; Dunaway v New York, 442 US 200, 216-217) is not preserved for our review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]). The sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Marks, J.— Robbery, 1st Degree.) Present — Pine, J. P., Hayes, Hurlbutt, Scudder and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 A.D.2d 957, 722 N.Y.S.2d 210, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2890, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lugo-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack