People v. France
| Decision Date | 02 April 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. 106 SSM 6.,106 SSM 6. |
| Citation | 906 N.E.2d 1070,12 N.Y.3d 790 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Donald FRANCE, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
Under CPL 710.60(1), a defendant is entitled to a hearing on a suppression motion only if there is an issue of fact that must be resolved before it can be determined whether suppression is required. Here, evaluating (1) the face of the pleadings, (2) the context of the motion, and (3) the defendant's access to information (see People v. Mendoza, 82 N.Y.2d 415, 426, 604 N.Y.S.2d 922, 624 N.E.2d 1017 [1993]; see also People v. Lopez, 5 N.Y.3d 753, 754, 801 N.Y.S.2d 245, 834 N.E.2d 1255 [2005]), the motion was properly denied without a hearing. Despite having sufficient information from the felony complaint and the voluntary disclosure form concerning the factual predicate for his arrest, defendant failed to dispute that the victim told the police that he had been robbed by defendant, that the victim identified him to the police and that defendant admitted possessing a pawnshop receipt for the stolen goods (cf. People v. Bryant, 8 N.Y.3d 530, 838 N.Y.S.2d 7, 869 N.E.2d 7 [2007]). These uncontested facts provide support for the Appellate Division's conclusion that there was probable cause for the arrest, and thus the Appellate Division correctly concluded that a hearing was unnecessary.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, in a memorandum.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Guzman
...604 N.Y.S.2d 922, 624 N.E.2d 1017 ; see People v. Garay, 25 N.Y.3d at 72, 7 N.Y.S.3d 254, 30 N.E.3d 145 ; People v. France, 12 N.Y.3d 790, 791, 879 N.Y.S.2d 36, 906 N.E.2d 1070 ; People v. Jones, 95 N.Y.2d 721, 725, 723 N.Y.S.2d 761, 746 N.E.2d 1053 ). Here, in the context of a year-long in......
-
People v. Price
...in support of the conclusory statement of illegal seizure or arrest and thus, his motion is summarily denied on this ground (People v France, 12 N.Y.3d 790 [2009]; People Jones, 95 N.Y.2d 721 [2001]; CPL 710.60[3][b]; see also People v Scully, 14 N.Y.3d 861 [2010]). Evidence obtained by sea......
-
People v. Magny
...87 ). Moreover, the defendant failed to establish entitlement to either a Mapp or a Darden hearing (see People v. France, 12 N.Y.3d 790, 791, 879 N.Y.S.2d 36, 906 N.E.2d 1070 ; People v. Hamilton, 276 A.D.2d 715, 716, 717 N.Y.S.2d 545 ). MASTRO, J.P., LEVENTHAL, BARROS and BRATHWAITE NELSON......
-
People v. Riley
...sworn allegation of fact in support of this contention and accordingly, his motion is summarily denied on this ground (People v France, 12 N.Y.3d 790 [2009]; People v Jones, 95 N.Y.2d 721 [2001]; CPL 710.60[3][b]; see also People v Scully, 442 U.S. 200 [1979]). Moreover, the Police had prob......