TILLAN, ELIO, PEOPLE v

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 6, 2015
DocketKA 10-00820
StatusPublished

This text of TILLAN, ELIO, PEOPLE v (TILLAN, ELIO, PEOPLE v) 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
TILLAN, ELIO, PEOPLE v, (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Opinion

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1309 KA 10-00820 PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., PERADOTTO, CARNI, LINDLEY, AND SCONIERS, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ELIO P. TILLAN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (JAMES ECKERT OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (STEPHEN X. O’BRIEN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Patricia D. Marks, J.), rendered November 23, 2009. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (three counts) and criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree (four counts).

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of, inter alia, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree (Penal Law § 220.21 [1]). We reject defendant’s contention that County Court erred in refusing to suppress evidence obtained through the use of an eavesdropping warrant. The warrant application established probable cause for the issuance of the warrant, and contained a sufficient showing that normal investigative procedures had been tried and had failed or reasonably appeared to be unlikely to succeed (see CPL 700.15 [1], [4]; People v Lazo, 16 AD3d 1153, 1153-1154, lv denied 4 NY3d 887; People v Truver, 244 AD2d 990, 991).

Entered: February 6, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court

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

Related

People v. Lazo
16 A.D.3d 1153 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
People v. Truver
244 A.D.2d 990 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
TILLAN, ELIO, PEOPLE v, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tillan-elio-people-v-nyappdiv-2015.