People v. Rodriguez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Rodriguez

58 A.D.3d 552, 870 N.Y.S.2d 910

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

DecidedJanuary 27, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 58 A.D.3d 552 (People v. Rodriguez) 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. Rodriguez, 58 A.D.3d 552, 870 N.Y.S.2d 910 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Supreme Court, New York County (James A. Yates, J.), rendered June 1, 2006, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of IV2 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]). The evidence credited by the court established probable cause for defendant’s arrest.

The imposition of mandatory surcharges and fees by way of court documents, but without mention in the court’s oral pronouncement of sentence, was lawful (see People v Harris, 51 AD3d 523 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 935 [2008]). Concur— Saxe, J.E, Gonzalez, Sweeny, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

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

Supreme Court, New York County (James A. Yates, J.), rendered June 1, 2006, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of IV2 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]). The evidence credited by the court established probable cause for defendant’s arrest.

The imposition of mandatory surcharges and fees by way of court documents, but without mention in the court’s oral pronouncement of sentence, was lawful (see People v Harris, 51 AD3d 523 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 935 [2008]). Concur— Saxe, J.E, Gonzalez, Sweeny, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

58 A.D.3d 552, 870 N.Y.S.2d 910, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rodriguez-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack