On this appeal, the defendant argues (1) that it was error for the trial court to find that he had not met his burden of proof at the suppression hearing and (2) that he was not properly sentenced as the record does not show that the trial court received and considered a presentence investigation report as required by CPL 390.20. The People had served a notice pursuant to CPL 710.30 (subd 1, par [a]) that they intended to offer at the trial a statement made by defendant to...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
