¶1Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: County Court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. Contrary to the contention of defendant, the State Trooper had probable cause to arrest him for driving while intoxicated based on his slurred speech; the odor of an alcoholic beverage in his vehicle; his bloodshot, watery eyes; his admission that he had been drinking; and his inability to perform one or more of the field sobriety tests (see, People v D’Augustino, 272 AD2d 914, 914-915, lv denied 95 NY2d 851; People v Schroeder, 229 AD2d 917, 917-918). The sentence, which was agreed upon as" part of the plea bargain, is not unduly harsh or severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Ontario County Court, Doran, J. — Felony Driving While Intoxicated.) Present — Hayes, J. P., Scudder, Burns, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.
289 A.D.2d 1021
People v. Welch
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided December 21, 2001
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · decided 2001-12-21
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently March 2002
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 2001-12-21
View the full empirical analysis of this case →