People v. Parris

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Parris

17 A.D.3d 121, 791 N.Y.S.2d 822, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3444

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

DecidedApril 5, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 17 A.D.3d 121 (People v. Parris) 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. Parris, 17 A.D.3d 121, 791 N.Y.S.2d 822, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3444 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Micki A. Scherer, J., on motion; Bruce Allen, J., at plea and sentence), rendered April 18, 2002, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, and sentencing him to a term of one year, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion without a hearing. The Feople set forth detailed information as to the predicate for defendant’s arrest, and defendant’s papers did not raise a factual dispute requiring a hearing (see People v Mendoza, 82 NY2d 415 [1993]). Furthermore, defendant did not raise his present contention that the police were not justified in conducting a body cavity search incident to an arrest for [122]*122marijuana possession. We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Sullivan, Ellerin, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Micki A. Scherer, J., on motion; Bruce Allen, J., at plea and sentence), rendered April 18, 2002, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, and sentencing him to a term of one year, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion without a hearing. The Feople set forth detailed information as to the predicate for defendant’s arrest, and defendant’s papers did not raise a factual dispute requiring a hearing (see People v Mendoza, 82 NY2d 415 [1993]). Furthermore, defendant did not raise his present contention that the police were not justified in conducting a body cavity search incident to an arrest for [122]*122marijuana possession. We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Sullivan, Ellerin, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 A.D.3d 121, 791 N.Y.S.2d 822, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3444, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-parris-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack