People v. Welch

289 A.D.2d 1021, 735 N.Y.S.2d 449, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12798
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 21, 2001·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: County Court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. Contrary to the contention of defendant, the State Trooper had probable cause to arrest him for driving while intoxicated based on his slurred speech; the odor of an alcoholic beverage in his vehicle; his bloodshot, watery eyes; his admission that he had been drinking; and his inability to perform one or more of the field sobriety tests (see, People v D’Augustino, 272 AD2d 914, 914-915, lv denied 95 NY2d 851; People v Schroeder, 229 AD2d 917, 917-918). The sentence, which was agreed upon as" part of the plea bargain, is not unduly harsh or severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Ontario County Court, Doran, J. — Felony Driving While Intoxicated.) Present — Hayes, J. P., Scudder, Burns, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.

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

People v. Welch, 289 A.D.2d 1021, 735 N.Y.S.2d 449, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12798 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

289 A.D.2d 1021 (People v. Welch) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Chelenza
303 A.D.2d 991 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)