People v. Marsh

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Marsh

157 A.D.2d 536, 550 N.Y.S.2d 10, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 384

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

DecidedJanuary 18, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 157 A.D.2d 536 (People v. Marsh) 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. Marsh, 157 A.D.2d 536, 550 N.Y.S.2d 10, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 384 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William McCooe, J., at suppression hearing; Robert Haft, J., at plea and sentence), rendered August 16, 1983, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of attempted robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him as a second felony offender to a term of imprisonment of from 3 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant was apprehended with a codefendant on 42nd Street between 9th and 10th Avenues in Manhattan at approximately 3:15 a.m. after being pointed out by the complain[537]*537ant as one of the two men who had, minutes earlier, robbed him at knifepoint. Subsequently, the complaining eyewitness positively identified the defendant and the other man as the perpetrators. Defendant and his codefendant were thereafter placed under arrest. A search then turned up the proceeds of the robbery and a knife.

Suppression of the money and knife was properly denied since the police had sufficient probable cause to arrest the defendant. (People v Rivera, 67 AD2d 867.) Similarly, the court properly rejected the defendant’s challenge to the constitutionality of his prior felony conviction on the basis of a bare conclusory allegation that it was unconstitutionally obtained. (See, People v Moore, 130 AD2d 375, 377.) Defendant’s allegations failed to contain specific facts supporting any conclusion of unconstitutionality. (People v Moore, supra.) Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Ross, Rosenberger and Ellerin, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William McCooe, J., at suppression hearing; Robert Haft, J., at plea and sentence), rendered August 16, 1983, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of attempted robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him as a second felony offender to a term of imprisonment of from 3 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant was apprehended with a codefendant on 42nd Street between 9th and 10th Avenues in Manhattan at approximately 3:15 a.m. after being pointed out by the complain[537]*537ant as one of the two men who had, minutes earlier, robbed him at knifepoint. Subsequently, the complaining eyewitness positively identified the defendant and the other man as the perpetrators. Defendant and his codefendant were thereafter placed under arrest. A search then turned up the proceeds of the robbery and a knife.

Suppression of the money and knife was properly denied since the police had sufficient probable cause to arrest the defendant. (People v Rivera, 67 AD2d 867.) Similarly, the court properly rejected the defendant’s challenge to the constitutionality of his prior felony conviction on the basis of a bare conclusory allegation that it was unconstitutionally obtained. (See, People v Moore, 130 AD2d 375, 377.) Defendant’s allegations failed to contain specific facts supporting any conclusion of unconstitutionality. (People v Moore, supra.) Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Ross, Rosenberger and Ellerin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

157 A.D.2d 536, 550 N.Y.S.2d 10, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 384, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-marsh-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack