PEOPLE v. GRIMALDI (2006)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Robert J. GRIMALDI, Defendant-Appellant.

Decided: June 09, 2006

PRESENT: PIGOTT, JR., P.J., HURLBUTT, KEHOE, SMITH, AND GREEN, JJ.

John E. Tyo, Shortsville, for Defendant-Appellant. R. Michael Tantillo, District Attorney, Canandaigua (Thomas D. Reh of Counsel), for Plaintiff-Respondent.

On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16[1] ), defendant contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel based on defense counsel's alleged failure to seek suppression of statements made by defendant at the crime scene to his parole officer and to a police officer. To the extent that the contention of defendant survives his plea of guilty (see People v. Burke, 256 A.D.2d 1244, 682 N.Y.S.2d 650, lv. denied 93 N.Y.2d 851, 688 N.Y.S.2d 498, 710 N.E.2d 1097), we conclude that it is lacking in merit. The record establishes that defense counsel in fact moved to suppress those statements and that, after hearing testimony concerning their admissibility, County Court refused to suppress them. The agreed-upon sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

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

MEMORANDUM:

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network