People v. Schneider

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Schneider

271 A.D.2d 260, 706 N.Y.S.2d 626, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4092

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

DecidedApril 11, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 271 A.D.2d 260 (People v. Schneider) 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. Schneider, 271 A.D.2d 260, 706 N.Y.S.2d 626, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4092 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Carruthers, J.), rendered September 15, 1997, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of assault in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of 4 to 8 years, unanimously affirmed.

Although defendant’s warrantless home arrest violated Payton v New York (445 US 573), the record of the suppression hearing provides ample support for the hearing court’s finding that defendant’s statements and the lineup identification were sufficiently attenuated from the Payton violation (see, People v Harris, 77 NY2d 434; People v Major, 215 AD2d 779, lv denied 86 NY2d 797; People v Ramos, 206 AD2d 260, 262-263).

We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Carruthers, J.), rendered September 15, 1997, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of assault in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of 4 to 8 years, unanimously affirmed.

Although defendant’s warrantless home arrest violated Payton v New York (445 US 573), the record of the suppression hearing provides ample support for the hearing court’s finding that defendant’s statements and the lineup identification were sufficiently attenuated from the Payton violation (see, People v Harris, 77 NY2d 434; People v Major, 215 AD2d 779, lv denied 86 NY2d 797; People v Ramos, 206 AD2d 260, 262-263).

We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 A.D.2d 260, 706 N.Y.S.2d 626, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4092, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-schneider-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack