People v. Pace

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Pace

143 A.D.3d 1286, 38 N.Y.S.3d 827

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

DecidedOctober 7, 2016

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 143 A.D.3d 1286 (People v. Pace) 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. Pace, 143 A.D.3d 1286, 38 N.Y.S.3d 827 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

[1287]*1287Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Penny M. Wolfgang, J.), rendered July 16, 2014. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03 [3]) and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (§ 265.02 [3]), defendant contends that Supreme Court erred in refusing to suppress a handgun and his oral statements to the police. We reject that contention. The police were entitled to arrest defendant for a violation of the local open container ordinance committed in their presence (see People v Taylor, 294 AD2d 825, 825 [2002]; People v Bothwell, 261 AD2d 232, 234-235 [1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 1026 [1999]; see generally CPL 140.10 [1] [a]; People ex rel. Johnson v New York State Div. of Parole, 299 AD2d 832, 834 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 508 [2003]), and the police were authorized to search defendant’s person incident to his lawful arrest (see People v Williams, 39 AD3d 1269, 1270 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 871 [2007]; Johnson, 299 AD2d at 834; Taylor, 294 AD2d at 826). The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

Present — Whalen, P.J., Centra, NeMoyer, Troutman and Scud-der, JJ.

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

[1287]*1287Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Penny M. Wolfgang, J.), rendered July 16, 2014. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03 [3]) and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (§ 265.02 [3]), defendant contends that Supreme Court erred in refusing to suppress a handgun and his oral statements to the police. We reject that contention. The police were entitled to arrest defendant for a violation of the local open container ordinance committed in their presence (see People v Taylor, 294 AD2d 825, 825 [2002]; People v Bothwell, 261 AD2d 232, 234-235 [1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 1026 [1999]; see generally CPL 140.10 [1] [a]; People ex rel. Johnson v New York State Div. of Parole, 299 AD2d 832, 834 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 508 [2003]), and the police were authorized to search defendant’s person incident to his lawful arrest (see People v Williams, 39 AD3d 1269, 1270 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 871 [2007]; Johnson, 299 AD2d at 834; Taylor, 294 AD2d at 826). The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

Present — Whalen, P.J., Centra, NeMoyer, Troutman and Scud-der, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

143 A.D.3d 1286, 38 N.Y.S.3d 827, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-pace-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack