People v. Monk

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Monk

28 A.D.3d 793, 816 N.Y.S.2d 108

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

DecidedApril 25, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 28 A.D.3d 793 (People v. Monk) 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. Monk, 28 A.D.3d 793, 816 N.Y.S.2d 108 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (DeRosa, J), rendered June 22, 2005, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The County Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s application for a Darden hearing (see People v Darden, 34 NY2d 177 [1974]), in light of the fact that one of the confidential informants appeared before the issuing magistrate and gave sworn testimony concerning the events in question (see People v Serrano, 93 NY2d 73, 77 [1999]). The defendant’s contention, in effect, that the County Court violated the plea agreement by sentencing him without a positive laboratory report is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]) and, in any event, cannot be reviewed on direct appeal because it is based on a matter dehors the record (cf. People v Heffelfinger, 19 AD3d 508, 509 [2005]). Adams, J.P., Goldstein, Fisher and Lifson, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (DeRosa, J), rendered June 22, 2005, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The County Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s application for a Darden hearing (see People v Darden, 34 NY2d 177 [1974]), in light of the fact that one of the confidential informants appeared before the issuing magistrate and gave sworn testimony concerning the events in question (see People v Serrano, 93 NY2d 73, 77 [1999]). The defendant’s contention, in effect, that the County Court violated the plea agreement by sentencing him without a positive laboratory report is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]) and, in any event, cannot be reviewed on direct appeal because it is based on a matter dehors the record (cf. People v Heffelfinger, 19 AD3d 508, 509 [2005]). Adams, J.P., Goldstein, Fisher and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 A.D.3d 793, 816 N.Y.S.2d 108, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-monk-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack