People v. Bennett
| Decision Date | 07 February 2020 |
| Docket Number | 1081,KA 16–01581 |
| Citation | 180 A.D.3d 1357,115 N.Y.S.3d 737 (Mem) |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Shane M. BENNETT, Defendant–Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
180 A.D.3d 1357
115 N.Y.S.3d 737 (Mem)
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Shane M. BENNETT, Defendant–Appellant.
1081
KA 16–01581
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Entered: February 7, 2020
LEANNE LAPP, PUBLIC DEFENDER, CANANDAIGUA, D.J. & J.A. CIRANDO, PLLC, SYRACUSE (REBECCA KONST OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT.
JAMES B. RITTS, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, CANANDAIGUA (V. CHRISTOPHER EAGGLESTON OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CARNI, LINDLEY, CURRAN, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the case is held, the decision is reserved and the matter is remitted to Supreme Court, Ontario County, for further proceedings in accordance with the following memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of six counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree ( Penal Law § 265.03[2], [3] ), 10 counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (§ 265.02[8] ), and one count of criminal possession of marihuana in the fourth degree (§ 221.15).
We conclude that Supreme Court properly refused to suppress statements defendant made to the police after his arrest. Contrary to defendant's contention, the court did not err in crediting the suppression hearing testimony of the police officer who issued Miranda warnings to defendant because of the officer's inability to recall certain details about the morning in question, such as what he first said to defendant during the encounter or whether his patrol vehicle's dome light was illuminated at that time. Although the officer's inability to recall certain details about the encounter is a factor to consider in determining his credibility, we conclude that there is "no basis to disturb the court's credibility assessments of the officer[ ] inasmuch as [n]othing about the officer['s] testimony was unbelievable as a matter of law, manifestly untrue, physically
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Johnson
...N.E.2d 1094] (1999), we cannot deem the court's failure to rule on the ... motion as a denial thereof" ( People v. Bennett , 180 A.D.3d 1357, 1358, 115 N.Y.S.3d 737 [4th Dept. 2020] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v. Moore , 147 A.D.3d 1548, 1548-1549, 48 N.Y.S.3d 567 [4th De......
-
People v. Dubois
...order of dismissal (see e.g. People v. Johnson , 192 A.D.3d 1612, 1615-1616, 143 N.Y.S.3d 763 [4th Dept. 2021] ; People v. Bennett , 180 A.D.3d 1357, 1358, 115 N.Y.S.3d 737 [4th Dept. 2020] ; People v. Moore , 147 A.D.3d 1548, 1548-1549, 48 N.Y.S.3d 567 [4th Dept. 2017] ; see generally Peop......
-
People v. Capitano
...495, 710 N.E.2d 1094 (1999), we cannot deem the court's failure to rule on the ... motion as a denial thereof" ( People v. Bennett , 180 A.D.3d 1357, 1358, 115 N.Y.S.3d 737 [4th Dept. 2020] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v. White , 134 A.D.3d 1414, 1415, 22 N.Y.S.3d 723 [4th......
-
People v. Wright
...we cannot deem the court's failure to rule on [the relevant part of] the ... motion as a denial thereof" ( People v. Bennett , 180 A.D.3d 1357, 1358, 115 N.Y.S.3d 737 [4th Dept. 2020] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v. Moore , 147 A.D.3d 1548, 1548-1549, 48 N.Y.S.3d 567 [4th ......