People v. Patterson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Patterson

114 A.D.3d 515, 980 N.Y.S.2d 752

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

DecidedFebruary 18, 2014

StatusPublished

This text of 114 A.D.3d 515 (People v. Patterson) 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. Patterson, 114 A.D.3d 515, 980 N.Y.S.2d 752 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles H. Solomon, J., at suppression hearing; Juan M. Merchan, J., at plea and sentencing), rendered January 4, 2011, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony drug offender previously convicted of a violent felony, to a term of seven years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. There is no basis for disturbing the court’s credibility determinations, which are supported by the record (see People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Sweeny, J.P, Renwick, Moskowitz, Richter and.Gische, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles H. Solomon, J., at suppression hearing; Juan M. Merchan, J., at plea and sentencing), rendered January 4, 2011, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony drug offender previously convicted of a violent felony, to a term of seven years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. There is no basis for disturbing the court’s credibility determinations, which are supported by the record (see People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Sweeny, J.P, Renwick, Moskowitz, Richter and.Gische, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

114 A.D.3d 515, 980 N.Y.S.2d 752, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-patterson-nyappdiv-2014.