People v. Harris, 2017–05563
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
| Citation | 109 N.Y.S.3d 362,175 A.D.3d 1555 |
| Docket Number | Ind. No. 1243/16,2017–05563 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Shymeek HARRIS, Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 25 September 2019 |
175 A.D.3d 1555
109 N.Y.S.3d 362
The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent,
v.
Shymeek HARRIS, Appellant.
2017–05563
Ind. No. 1243/16
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Argued—March 26, 2019
September 25, 2019
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (Samuel Barr of counsel), for appellant.
John M. Ryan, Acting District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, Roni C. Piplani, and Michelle M. Yong of counsel), for respondent.
RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P., JEFFREY A. COHEN, ROBERT J. MILLER, BETSY BARROS, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County
(Ronald D. Hollie, J.), rendered April 19, 2017, convicting him of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second 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 statement to law enforcement officials.
ORDERED that the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a new determination of those branches of the defendant's omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence and his statement to law enforcement officials in accordance herewith, and thereafter a report to this Court advising of the new determination, and the appeal is held in abeyance in the interim. The Supreme Court shall file its report with all convenient speed.
The defendant was charged with seven counts of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree and two counts of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree. In an omnibus motion, the defendant moved, inter alia, to suppress (1) a credit card allegedly recovered from the center console of a certain motor vehicle (hereinafter the subject motor vehicle), (2) a group of credit cards allegedly recovered from the defendant's person, and (3) a statement the defendant allegedly made to law enforcement officials.
The Supreme Court conducted a suppression hearing over the course of five different days between October 3, 2016, and
October 28, 2016. At the hearing, the People presented the testimony of the law enforcement officials who recovered the physical evidence and recorded the defendant's statement. After the People rested, the defendant called three witnesses to testify at the hearing. The defendant first presented the testimony of an individual who was present when the physical evidence was recovered. The defendant also presented the testimony of two individuals who worked as paralegals in the office of the Queens County District Attorney.
After the hearing, the Supreme Court denied those branches of the defendant's omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence and his statement to law enforcement officials. The court's decision and order did not make any credibility determinations or factual findings. Nor did the court set forth any conclusions of law or state the reasons for its determination.
The defendant subsequently pleaded guilty to one count of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree. The defendant purportedly waived his right to appeal after he had allocuted to the facts of the crime. The defendant was later sentenced, in accordance with the plea agreement, to four years of probation.
On appeal, the defendant contends that the Supreme Court should have granted those branches of his omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence and his statement to law enforcement officials. The defendant argues that the People's witnesses at the suppression hearing were not credible, as their testimony was contrived, contradictory, vague, and incomplete.
The People respond that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Harris
...officials in accordance herewith, and thereafter a report to this Court advising of the new determination" ( People v. Harris, 175 A.D.3d 1555, 1555, 109 N.Y.S.3d 362 ). The appeal was held in abeyance in the interim (see id. ).The Supreme Court, Queens County (Ronald D. Hollie, J.), subseq......
-
People v. Aquino
...conflated the waiver of the right to appeal with the rights automatically forfeited by a plea of guilty (see People v. Harris, 175 A.D.3d 1555, 1556, 109 N.Y.S.3d 362 ; People v. Ortiz, 167 A.D.3d 658, 659, 86 N.Y.S.3d 914 ). As such, the record does not demonstrate that the defendant under......
-
People v. Ortega-Flores
...between the right to appeal and the other trial rights which are forfeited incident to a plea of guilty" ( People v. Harris , 175 A.D.3d 1555, 1557, 109 N.Y.S.3d 362 [2019] ). Although defendant signed a written waiver of his right to appeal, it, too, failed to distinguish correctly between......
-
People v. Rice
...omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence and his statement to law enforcement officials (see People v. Harris, 175 A.D.3d 1555, 109 N.Y.S.3d 362 ; People v. Thomas, 167 A.D.3d 1050, 91 N.Y.S.3d 157 ). The court shall articulate the basis for its determination based upon the e......