People v. Manners

118 A.D.2d 734, 500 N.Y.S.2d 67, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54599
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 17, 1986
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 118 A.D.2d 734 (People v. Manners) 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. Manners, 118 A.D.2d 734, 500 N.Y.S.2d 67, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54599 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Cohen, J.), rendered April 11, 1983, convicting him of burglary in the third degree, grand larceny in the second degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the first degree, grand larceny in the third degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

The defendant contends on this appeal that he was arrested without probable cause and hence that the physical evidence seized by the police during the ensuing search of a stolen vehicle in which he was a passenger should have been suppressed. However, the record indicates that the defendant at no time moved for a hearing to suppress this evidence, nor did he object to its admission at trial. He has thus waived the probable cause issue and failed, as a matter of law, to preserve it for appellate review (see, CPL 710.70 [3]; People v Coleman, 56 NY2d 269; People v Berrios, 28 NY2d 361; People v Shaoul, 96 AD2d 892).

The defendant’s contention that the People failed to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is without merit. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution [735]*735(see, People v Di Girolamo, 108 AD2d 755, lv denied 64 NY2d 1133), we conclude that there was ample proof upon which the trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620). Finally, we discern no impropriety in the sentencing of the defendant. Lazer, J. P., Rubin, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Davis
213 A.D.2d 665 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
People v. Vassell
213 A.D.2d 571 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
People v. Scott
201 A.D.2d 867 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
People v. White
137 A.D.2d 859 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)
People v. Avery
129 A.D.2d 852 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)
People v. Underwood
126 A.D.2d 584 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
118 A.D.2d 734, 500 N.Y.S.2d 67, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54599, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-manners-nyappdiv-1986.