People v. Spearman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Spearman

24 A.D.3d 1243, 805 N.Y.S.2d 891

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

DecidedDecember 22, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 24 A.D.3d 1243 (People v. Spearman) 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. Spearman, 24 A.D.3d 1243, 805 N.Y.S.2d 891 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

from a judgment of the Oneida County Court (Barry M. Donalty, J.), [1244]*1244rendered May 23, 2003. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 220.09 [1]). County Court properly refused to suppress physical evidence seized from defendant at the time of his arrest. The court was entitled to credit the testimony of the police officers that defendant was arrested pursuant to a parole warrant issued prior to the arrest (see generally People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, that testimony did not have “all appearances of having been patently tailored to nullify constitutional objections” (People v Garafolo, 44 AD2d 86, 88 [1974]). The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present— Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Pine, Lawton and Hayes, JJ.

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

from a judgment of the Oneida County Court (Barry M. Donalty, J.), [1244]*1244rendered May 23, 2003. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 220.09 [1]). County Court properly refused to suppress physical evidence seized from defendant at the time of his arrest. The court was entitled to credit the testimony of the police officers that defendant was arrested pursuant to a parole warrant issued prior to the arrest (see generally People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, that testimony did not have “all appearances of having been patently tailored to nullify constitutional objections” (People v Garafolo, 44 AD2d 86, 88 [1974]). The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present— Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Pine, Lawton and Hayes, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 A.D.3d 1243, 805 N.Y.S.2d 891, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-spearman-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack