People v. George
| Decision Date | 03 November 2010 |
| Citation | 910 N.Y.S.2d 508,78 A.D.3d 728 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Sean GEORGE, appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Janet A. Gandolfo, Sleepy Hollow, N.Y., for appellant.
Francis D. Phillips II, District Attorney, Goshen, N.Y. (Lauren E. Grasso and Andrew R. Kass of counsel), for respondent.
PETER B. SKELOS, J.P., RUTH C. BALKIN, CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, and LEONARD B. AUSTIN, JJ.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Freehill, J.), rendered October 29, 2007,convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of marijuana in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of those branches of the defendant's omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence and his statements to law enforcement officials.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The credibility determinations of a hearing court are accorded deference on appeal, and will not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record ( see People v. Tandle, 71 A.D.3d 1176, 898 N.Y.S.2d 597; People v. Rivera, 59 A.D.3d 467, 873 N.Y.S.2d 157). Here, the record supports the hearing court's determination that probable cause existed for the warrantless search of the defendant's vehicle,based on the arresting officer's detection of the odor of burnt marijuana emanating from the defendant's vehicle, and the defendant's admission that he had earlier smoked marijuana ( see People v. Parris, 26 A.D.3d 393, 809 N.Y.S.2d 176; People v. Cirigliano, 15 A.D.3d 672, 791 N.Y.S.2d 584; People v. Figueroa, 6 A.D.3d 720, 776 N.Y.S.2d 574; People v. Chestnut, 43 A.D.2d 260, 351 N.Y.S.2d 26, affd. 36 N.Y.2d 971, 373 N.Y.S.2d 564, 335 N.E.2d 865). Accordingly, that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence recovered during the vehicle search was properly denied ( see People v. Cirigliano, 15 A.D.3d 672, 791 N.Y.S.2d 584; People v. Fleury, 8 A.D.3d 585, 779 N.Y.S.2d 133). Further, because the search of the defendant's vehicle and his arrest were lawful, the defendant's subsequent statements to the police were not, contrary to the defendant's contention, subject to suppression as stemming from an unlawful search and arrest ( see People v. Mais, 71 A.D.3d 1163, 897 N.Y.S.2d 716; People v. Fleury, 8 A.D.3d 585, 779 N.Y.S.2d 133; see generally Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441).
The defendant's additional contention that his plea...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. McClam
...having smoked marijuana earlier provided probable cause to search the defendant's vehicle, including the trunk]; People v. George, 78 AD3d 728, 910 N.Y.S.2d 508 (2nd Dept. 2010) [detection of the odor of burnt marijuana emanating from the defendant's vehicle and the defendant's admission to......
-
People v. John
...which was to suppress his statements to the police ( see People v. McClendon, 92 A.D.3d 959, 960, 939 N.Y.S.2d 530;People v. George, 78 A.D.3d 728, 728–729, 910 N.Y.S.2d 508;People v. Day, 8 A.D.3d 495, 496, 778 N.Y.S.2d 513;see generally Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 83 S.Ct. 40......
-
People v. Condon
...v. Parris, 26 A.D.3d 393, 394, 809 N.Y.S.2d 176;People v. Cruz, 7 A.D.3d 335, 337, 777 N.Y.S.2d 66;see also People v. George, 78 A.D.3d 728, 729, 910 N.Y.S.2d 508;People v. Cirigliano, 15 A.D.3d 672, 673, 791 N.Y.S.2d 584). Since the defendant's arrest was proper, his subsequent statements ......
-
People v. Cuffie
...445). Further, the driver admitted that someone may have smoked marihuana in the vehicle prior to the stop ( see People v. George, 78 A.D.3d 728, 728–729, 910 N.Y.S.2d 508,lv. denied16 N.Y.3d 859, 923 N.Y.S.2d 421, 947 N.E.2d 1200), and the police witnesses testified that the vehicle contin......