People v. Hines
| Decision Date | 22 May 2019 |
| Docket Number | Ind. No. 1476/15,2017–09424 |
| Citation | 172 A.D.3d 1225,101 N.Y.S.3d 145 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. John HINES, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
172 A.D.3d 1225
101 N.Y.S.3d 145
The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent,
v.
John HINES, Appellant.
2017–09424
Ind. No. 1476/15
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Argued—February 7, 2019
May 22, 2019
Stephen R. Mahler, Kew Gardens, NY, for appellant.
Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Kevin C. King and John B. Latella of counsel), for respondent.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., LEONARD B. AUSTIN, JEFFREY A. COHEN, ANGELA G. IANNACCI, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
We agree with the hearing court's determination declining to suppress physical evidence, as the credible evidence at the suppression hearing established that the police had probable cause
to arrest the defendant (see People v. Frederique, 137 A.D.3d 1161, 26 N.Y.S.3d 885 ; People v. Spann, 82 A.D.3d 1013, 918 N.Y.S.2d 588 ). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the testimony of the police witness at the hearing was not incredible, patently tailored to overcome constitutional objections, or otherwise unworthy of belief (see People v. Kelly, 131 A.D.3d 484, 15 N.Y.S.3d 391 ; People v. Glenn, 53 A.D.3d 622, 861 N.Y.S.2d 781 ).
The defendant's contention that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel failed to move to reopen the suppression hearing is without merit. Counsel will not be deemed ineffective for failing to pursue an argument that has little or no chance of success (see People v. Flowers, 28 N.Y.3d 536, 46 N.Y.S.3d 497, 68 N.E.3d 1228 ; People v. Brown, 13 N.Y.3d 332, 341, 890 N.Y.S.2d 415, 918 N.E.2d 927 ; People v. Ennis, 11 N.Y.3d 403, 415, 872 N.Y.S.2d 364, 900 N.E.2d 915 ; People v. Caban, 5 N.Y.3d 143, 152, 800 N.Y.S.2d 70, 833 N.E.2d 213 ). The defendant has not established that the police testimony at the hearing was inconsistent with testimony elicited from other police witnesses at trial, and it is unlikely that the County Court would have granted an application to reopen the suppression hearing or that, if it had done so, it would have...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- People v. Hendrix
-
People v. Ellerbee
... ... Hines, 172 A.D.3d 1225, 12251226, 101 N.Y.S.3d 145 ; People v. Colselby, 240 A.D.2d 227, 659 N.Y.S.2d 5 ). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the testimony of the arresting officer at the suppression hearing was not incredible as a matter of law, patently tailored to nullify constitutional ... ...
-
People v. Kelly
... ... Leftenant, 173 A.D.3d 1211, 12111212, 104 N.Y.S.3d 162 ; People v. Hines, 172 A.D.3d 1225, 1226, 101 N.Y.S.3d 145 ).The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant's motion pursuant 174 N.Y.S.3d 271 to CPL 440.10 to vacate his judgment of conviction. DILLON, J.P., DUFFY, BRATHWAITE NELSON and ... ...
-
People v. Giron, 2012–03715
... ... Baez , 175 A.D.3d 553, 107 N.Y.S.3d 385 ; see also People v. Hines , 172 A.D.3d 1225, 1226, 101 N.Y.S.3d 145 ).The defendant's counsel also was not ineffective for failing to seek a Payton hearing (see Payton v. New York , 445 U.S. 573, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 ; People v. Baez , 175 A.D.3d 553, 107 N.Y.S.3d 385 ; see also People v. Hines , 172 A.D.3d at ... ...