People v. Skerry

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Skerry

205 A.D.2d 565, 614 N.Y.S.2d 270

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

DecidedJune 6, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 205 A.D.2d 565 (People v. Skerry) 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. Skerry, 205 A.D.2d 565, 614 N.Y.S.2d 270 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Paño Z. Patsalos, J.), rendered August 20, 1992, convicting him of burglary in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress statements made by him to law enforcement officials.

[566]*566Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The County Court properly determined that the police conduct did not violate the defendant’s constitutional right to be free of unlawful searches and seizures (People v Hollman, 79 NY2d 181; People v Cruz, 169 AD2d 836; People v Hicks, 68 NY2d 234).

We have examined the defendant’s remaining arguments concerning the plea allocution and the court’s Sandoval ruling, and find that they are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit (see, People v Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636; People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9; People v Johnson, 141 AD2d 848). Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Pizzuto and Hart, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Paño Z. Patsalos, J.), rendered August 20, 1992, convicting him of burglary in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress statements made by him to law enforcement officials.

[566]*566Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The County Court properly determined that the police conduct did not violate the defendant’s constitutional right to be free of unlawful searches and seizures (People v Hollman, 79 NY2d 181; People v Cruz, 169 AD2d 836; People v Hicks, 68 NY2d 234).

We have examined the defendant’s remaining arguments concerning the plea allocution and the court’s Sandoval ruling, and find that they are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit (see, People v Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636; People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9; People v Johnson, 141 AD2d 848). Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Pizzuto and Hart, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

205 A.D.2d 565, 614 N.Y.S.2d 270, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-skerry-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack