People v. Merriwether

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Merriwether

284 A.D.2d 147, 725 N.Y.S.2d 552, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5682

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

DecidedJune 7, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 284 A.D.2d 147 (People v. Merriwether) 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. Merriwether, 284 A.D.2d 147, 725 N.Y.S.2d 552, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5682 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Phylis Skloot Bamberger, J., at suppression hearing; William Donnino, J., at plea and sentence), rendered January 21, 1999, convicting defendant of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, and sentencing him, as second felony offender, to a term of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s suppression motion was properly denied. The arresting officer’s testimony regarding his receipt of transmissions from the undercover officer indicating a drug transaction, together with the detailed description of the seller and his location established probable cause to arrest defendant (People v Allison, 270 AD2d 148, lv denied 95 NY2d 792). When apprehended within seconds of the transmission, defendant was the only person present matching the description (see, People v Rampersant, 272 AD2d 202, lv denied 95 NY2d 870).

Defendant’s claim that the identification by the undercover officer was the result of undue suggestion is not properly before this Court since his motion for a Wade hearing was summarily denied, a determination that defendant does not challenge. In any event, the record clearly establishes that a proper confirmatory identification occurred (People v Wharton, 74 NY2d 921).

The record establishes that defendant was properly sentenced in accordance with his plea bargain and with Penal Law § 70.25 (2-a). Concur — Tom, J. P., Andrias, Ellerin, Wallach and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Phylis Skloot Bamberger, J., at suppression hearing; William Donnino, J., at plea and sentence), rendered January 21, 1999, convicting defendant of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, and sentencing him, as second felony offender, to a term of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s suppression motion was properly denied. The arresting officer’s testimony regarding his receipt of transmissions from the undercover officer indicating a drug transaction, together with the detailed description of the seller and his location established probable cause to arrest defendant (People v Allison, 270 AD2d 148, lv denied 95 NY2d 792). When apprehended within seconds of the transmission, defendant was the only person present matching the description (see, People v Rampersant, 272 AD2d 202, lv denied 95 NY2d 870).

Defendant’s claim that the identification by the undercover officer was the result of undue suggestion is not properly before this Court since his motion for a Wade hearing was summarily denied, a determination that defendant does not challenge. In any event, the record clearly establishes that a proper confirmatory identification occurred (People v Wharton, 74 NY2d 921).

The record establishes that defendant was properly sentenced in accordance with his plea bargain and with Penal Law § 70.25 (2-a). Concur — Tom, J. P., Andrias, Ellerin, Wallach and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 A.D.2d 147, 725 N.Y.S.2d 552, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5682, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-merriwether-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack