From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Honeycutt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Dec 30, 1999
267 A.D.2d 1007 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

December 30, 1999

Appeal from Judgment of Erie County Court, Rogowski, J. — Criminal Possession Controlled Substance, 4th Degree.

Judgment unanimously affirmed.

PRESENT: PINE, J. P., WISNER, HURLBUTT AND BALIO, JJ.


Memorandum:

By moving to suppress evidence seized from his home at the time of his arrest solely on the basis that the warrantless entry into his home was not justified by exigent circumstances, defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the evidence should have been suppressed because it was not in plain view and was the product of an unlawful search ( see, People v. Claudio, 64 N.Y.2d 858; People v. Brooks, 231 A.D.2d 867, lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 862). We decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice ( see, CPL 470.15[a]). The sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit.


Summaries of

People v. Honeycutt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Dec 30, 1999
267 A.D.2d 1007 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

People v. Honeycutt

Case Details

Full title:PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. ANDRE HONEYCUTT…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Dec 30, 1999

Citations

267 A.D.2d 1007 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
700 N.Y.S.2d 900

Citing Cases

People v. Pinkard

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him after a jury trial of one count each of burglary…

People v. Dove

Defendant contends that no exigent circumstances existed to permit the warrantless entry into his apartment,…