People v. Thompson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Thompson

58 A.D.3d 879, 870 N.Y.S.2d 924

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

DecidedJanuary 27, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 58 A.D.3d 879 (People v. Thompson) 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. Thompson, 58 A.D.3d 879, 870 N.Y.S.2d 924 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Eng, J.), rendered January 16, 2007, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree (two counts), resisting arrest, and unlawful possession of marihuana, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Grosso, J.), of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The Supreme Court correctly determined that exigent circumstances justified the search of the defendant’s bag (see People v Gokey, 60 NY2d 309, 312 [1983]).

The defendant’s argument that the evidence at trial was legally insufficient to support the conviction for resisting arrest is without merit. Upon our independent review pursuant to CPL 470.15 (5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]). Fisher, J.P, Miller, Garni and Balkin, 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 Supreme Court, Queens County (Eng, J.), rendered January 16, 2007, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree (two counts), resisting arrest, and unlawful possession of marihuana, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Grosso, J.), of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The Supreme Court correctly determined that exigent circumstances justified the search of the defendant’s bag (see People v Gokey, 60 NY2d 309, 312 [1983]).

The defendant’s argument that the evidence at trial was legally insufficient to support the conviction for resisting arrest is without merit. Upon our independent review pursuant to CPL 470.15 (5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]). Fisher, J.P, Miller, Garni and Balkin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

58 A.D.3d 879, 870 N.Y.S.2d 924, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-thompson-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack