People v. Frange
| Decision Date | 11 March 1985 |
| Citation | 109 A.D.2d 802,486 N.Y.S.2d 315 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Howard FRANGE, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
David Pomerantz, Garden City, for appellant.
Elizabeth Holtzman, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Barbara D. Underwood, Lisa Margaret Smith and Carol Teague Schwartzkopf, Asst. Dist. Attys., Brooklyn, of counsel), for respondent.
Before MANGANO, J.P., and GIBBONS, BRACKEN and NIEHOFF, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered November 30, 1981, convicting him of criminal possession of marijuana in the second degree and criminal sale of marijuana in the fourth degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.
Judgment affirmed.
Contrary to defendant's assertion, the detective's application for a search warrant provided sufficient information to support the issuing magistrate's determination that there was probable cause to believe marijuana would be found on the premises of the pizzeria where defendant was employed (see Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527; People v. Hanlon, 36 N.Y.2d 549, 369 N.Y.S.2d 677, 330 N.E.2d 631; People v. Marinelli, 100 A.D.2d 597, 473 N.Y.S.2d 546). Moreover, assuming, arguendo, that the 13-day period which elapsed between the date the search warrant was executed and the date it was returned to the court constituted "unnecessary delay" within the meaning of CPL 690.30(1), the requirement that the warrant be returned in a timely manner is a ministerial duty, noncompliance with which cannot be used to invalidate an otherwise valid warrant (see People v. Davis, 93 A.D.2d 970, 463 N.Y.S.2d 67; People v. Ciccarelli, 104 Misc.2d 287, 428 N.Y.S.2d 150). Thus, defendant's motion to controvert the warrant which authorized a search of the pizzeria was properly denied.
We have considered defendant's other contentions and find them to be without merit.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Dyla
...1195-1196 State v. Brock, 294 Or. 15, 653 P.2d 543; Commonwealth v. Johnson, 315 Pa.Super. 579, 462 A.2d 743; see also, People v. Frange, 109 A.D.2d 802, 486 N.Y.S.2d 315 People v. Varney, 32 A.D.2d 181, 301 N.Y.S.2d 330; People v. Crispell, 110 A.D.2d 926, 927, 487 N.Y.S.2d 174 warrant do ......
-
People v. Shapiro
...790, 493 N.Y.S.2d 127, 482 N.E.2d 923), defective for any of the reasons now advanced by defendant (see, e.g., People v. Frange, 109 A.D.2d 802, 803, 486 N.Y.S.2d 315). We reject the contention that the trial court imposed an unduly excessive or harsh sentence. Although defendant contends, ......
-
People v. Morgan
...v. Hernandez, 131 A.D.2d 509, 516 N.Y.S.2d 254; see also, People v. Nelson, 144 A.D.2d 714, 716, 535 N.Y.S.2d 132; People v. Frange, 109 A.D.2d 802, 486 N.Y.S.2d 315). ...
- People v. Hardy