People v. Doyle

• Decision Date: 14 December 1995
• Citation: People v. Doyle, 635 N.Y.S.2d 718, 222 A.D.2d 875 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Robert DOYLE, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 718

635 N.Y.S.2d 718

222 A.D.2d 875

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Robert DOYLE, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Department.

Dec. 14, 1995.

Newell & Toomey (Ronald L. Newell, of counsel), Glens Falls, for appellant.

Robert M. Winn, District Attorney, Fort Edward, for respondent.

Before MIKOLL, J.P., and CREW, WHITE, YESAWICH and PETERS, JJ.

PETERS, Justice.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Washington County (Hemmett Jr., J.), rendered August 22, 1994, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of marihuana in the third degree.

On October 21, 1992, at approximately 9:00 P.M., a search warrant was executed at defendant's home in the Town of Kingsbury, Washington County. A quantity of marihuana and drug paraphernalia were discovered during the search which resulted in a four-count indictment charging defendant with a variety of drug-related crimes, including criminal possession of marihuana in the second degree. Defendant made an omnibus motion requesting, inter alia, suppression of the property seized; however, this motion was denied followed a hearing. Thereafter, defendant pleaded guilty to one count of criminal possession of marihuana in the third degree in satisfaction of the indictment and this appeal followed.

Initially, defendant argues that the search warrant application was insufficient to establish probable cause under the two-pronged reliability and basis of knowledge test, known as the Aguilar-Spinelli standard (see, Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723; Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 89 S.Ct. 584, 21 L.Ed.2d 637; see also, People v. Griminger, 71 N.Y.2d 635, 637, 529 N.Y.S.2d 55, 524 N.E.2d 409). However, since the information that served as the basis for the warrant came from a named informant's sworn statement detailing certain first-hand observations, as opposed to being culled from hearsay statements relayed by a police officer, the Aguilar- Spinelli standard is inapplicable here (see, People v. Bartolomeo, 53 N.Y.2d 225, 233-234, 440 N.Y.S.2d 894, 423 N.E.2d 371; see also, People v. Baker, 174 A.D.2d 815, 816, 570 N.Y.S.2d 857, lv. denied 78 N.Y.2d 920, 573 N.Y.S.2d 472, 577 N.E.2d 1064; People v. Deliz, 172 A.D.2d 877, 878, 568 N.Y.S.2d 181, lv. denied 78 N.Y.2d 921, 573 N.Y.S.2d 474, 577 N.E.2d 1066). While it is true that the informant's affidavit included some hearsay information, the personal observations and activities described therein along with other information included with the warrant application, provided sufficient probable cause for issuance of the warrant (see, People v. Deliz, supra, at 878, 568 N.Y.S.2d 181).

Finally, defendant argues that County Court erred in accepting his plea of guilty because proof that defendant knew the weight of the drugs he...