People v. Muniz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Muniz

135 A.D.2d 1106, 523 N.Y.S.2d 321, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52968

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

DecidedDecember 18, 1987

StatusPublished

This text of 135 A.D.2d 1106 (People v. Muniz) 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. Muniz, 135 A.D.2d 1106, 523 N.Y.S.2d 321, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52968 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant’s sole argument on appeal is that the court erred in failing to set forth on the record, pursuant to CPL 710.60 (6), its findings of fact, conclusions of law and reasons for its determination denying his request for a Wade hearing (United States v Wade, 388 US 218). The argument is without merit. In the affidavit supporting defendant’s motion for such a hearing, defense counsel made the request contingent upon the existence of photographs of defendant taken during the drug transactions alleged in the indictment. The People’s responding affidavit makes it clear that defendant was not so photographed. Accordingly, absent the existence of photographs, there was no request for a hearing and the court was not subject to the requirements of subdivision (6) of CPL 710.60. (Appeal from judgment of Erie County Court, La Mendola, J. — criminal sale of controlled substance, third degree.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

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

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant’s sole argument on appeal is that the court erred in failing to set forth on the record, pursuant to CPL 710.60 (6), its findings of fact, conclusions of law and reasons for its determination denying his request for a Wade hearing (United States v Wade, 388 US 218). The argument is without merit. In the affidavit supporting defendant’s motion for such a hearing, defense counsel made the request contingent upon the existence of photographs of defendant taken during the drug transactions alleged in the indictment. The People’s responding affidavit makes it clear that defendant was not so photographed. Accordingly, absent the existence of photographs, there was no request for a hearing and the court was not subject to the requirements of subdivision (6) of CPL 710.60. (Appeal from judgment of Erie County Court, La Mendola, J. — criminal sale of controlled substance, third degree.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

135 A.D.2d 1106, 523 N.Y.S.2d 321, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52968, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-muniz-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack