People v. McUllin
Decision Date | 25 July 2017 |
Docket Number | 3517, 4964/11. |
Citation | 152 A.D.3d 461,59 N.Y.S.3d 329 |
Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Devontae McULLIN, Defendant–Appellant. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Seymour W. James, Jr., The Legal Aid Society, New York (Arthur H. Hopkirk of counsel), for appellant.
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (David M. Cohn of counsel), for respondent.
FRIEDMAN, J.P., SWEENY, RENWICK, MANZANET–DANIELS, ANDRIAS, JJ.
Appeal from judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Thomas Farber, J.), rendered January 22, 2013, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of burglary in the first degree (two counts) and attempted rape in the first degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 13 years, unanimously held in abeyance, and the matter remitted for a Mapp/Dunaway hearing to determine whether defendant was arrested without probable cause and, if so, what evidence, if any, should be suppressed on the ground that it was obtained as the result of such unlawful arrest.
According to the complaint, a knife was recovered from the crime scene.
The People's voluntary disclosure form (VDF) states that defendant was arrested at 11:22 a.m. on October 13, 2011, and that he was identified by an unnamed witness as a suspect through a lineup conducted at 11:25 a.m. on October 13, 2011 (i.e., three minutes after the arrest).1 The VDF states that both the arrest and the identification took place at 221 East 123rd Street, which is the address of a police station, and identifies two items of physical evidence in the People's possession, a knife and "pants." The VDF also discloses that, before the stated time of the arrest (11:22 a.m. on October 13), defendant had made two statements to a police detective, both at the same police station, the first statement at 11:30 p.m. on October 12 (the night before the arrest) and the second at 7:15 a.m. on October 13 (slightly more than four hours before the arrest). Accordingly, it appears from the VDF that defendant somehow arrived at the police station on the night of October 12, 2011, was questioned, presumably spent the night at the station, was questioned again early the next morning, and was formally placed under arrest around midday. The VDF provides no information about the manner in which defendant came to be present at the police station on the night of October 12, 2011, or the basis on which he came to the attention of the police on that day.2
In his omnibus motion seeking various forms of relief, defendant sought to suppress certain of the evidence against him—physical evidence described as "various clothing items recovered from the defendant," his statements to the police on October 12 and 13, and the lineup identification that had been obtained on October 13—on various grounds, including, as relevant to this appeal, the claim that this evidence was obtained as the result of the police having unlawfully seized defendant's person at his home, without probable cause, on October 12, 2011, which seizure allegedly violated his constitutional rights ( U.S. Const., 4th, 14th Amends; NY Const., art I, § 12 ). In the alternative to an order suppressing all "tangible or testimonial fruits of his seizure and search by the police," defendant sought hearings on the issues raised, including a Huntley hearing on the voluntariness of his statements to the police and a Wade hearing on the propriety of the lineup identification.
In support of his contention that he had been unlawfully seized at his home on October 12, 2011, without probable cause, defendant, through his counsel, averred:
Defendant stated that it was difficult for him to meet his statutory obligation under CPL 710.60(1) to provide sworn allegations of fact controverting the People's facts, because the People had not disclosed how he had been identified as a suspect before he was arrested. In this regard, defendant, through his counsel, further averred, in pertinent part (citations and paragraph numbers omitted):
In their opposition to the omnibus motion, the People did not specifically address defendant's claim that he had been arrested at his home on October 12. Rather, the People averred in conclusory fashion that "defendant was arrested lawfully," and "controvert[ed] all allegations to the contrary," without offering any factual detail. Although defendant's claims about his arrest are seemingly at odds with the VDF's statement that he was arrested at a police station at 11:22 a.m. on October 13, the People concluded that he was not entitled to a hearing on the suppression motion "because the defendant's motion does not establish a factual dispute requiring a hearing." To the extent defendant's motion sought additional factual discovery, the People took the position that the VDF had already "provide[d] all of the pretrial discovery to which the defendant is entitled."
By order entered on or about January 10, 2012, Supreme Court, as relevant to this appeal, granted defendant a Wade hearing (on the propriety of the procedure by which the identification evidence had been obtained) and a Huntley hearing (on the voluntariness of his statements) but denied him any relief based on the claim that the police had lacked probable cause to arrest him. With respect to the branch of the motion seeking to suppress physical evidence as the fruit of an allegedly unlawful arrest (see Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 [1961] ), the court stated that "[d]efendant's factual allegation[s] are insufficient in light of the information contained on the felony [complaint] and in the VDF," but granted defendant "leave to renew upon appropriate papers within 14 days of the date of the date [sic] of this order or such further time as approved by the Court." With respect to the branch of the motion seeking to suppress defendant's statements as the fruit of an allegedly unlawful arrest (see Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200, 99 S.Ct. 2248, 60 L.Ed.2d 824 [1979] ), the court stated that "[d]efendant has failed to present factual allegations sufficient to support such relief," without granting leave to renew.
After the court rendered the foregoing decision, but before the Huntley/Wade hearing had been held, defendant pleaded guilty as indicated. He now appeals from the ensuing judgment of conviction, arguing principally that Supreme Court erred in summarily denying him a hearing on his motion to suppress evidence on the ground that it was obtained as the result of an arrest made without probable cause. For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that, given the limited information available to him, defendant made sufficient factual allegations to place at issue whether the People had probable cause to arrest him, whenever the arrest occurred. Accordingly, we hold the appeal in abeyance pending a hearing to determine that issue and, if it is resolved in defendant's favor, the extent to which the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Esperanza
...the pleadings may reasonably be expected to be precise in view of the information available to defendant" ( People v. McUllin , 152 A.D.3d 461, 466, 59 N.Y.S.3d 329 [1st Dept. 2017] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Along these lines, "[w]hether a defendant has raised factual issues requ......
-
People v. Esperanza
... ... this Court has previously held that "a court must ... consider the degree to which the pleadings may reasonably be ... expected to be precise in view of the information available ... to defendant" ( People v McUllin , 152 A.D.3d ... 461, 466 [1st Dept 2017] [internal quotation marks omitted]) ... Along these lines, "[w]hether a defendant has raised ... factual issues requiring a hearing can only be determined ... with reference to the People's contentions" ... ( Mendoza , 82 ... ...
-
People v. Mcullin
...without probable cause and if so, what evidence, if any, should be suppressed as the fruit of an unlawful arrest ( 152 A.D.3d 461, 59 N.Y.S.3d 329 [1st Dept. 2017] ). Upon remittal, the court held a Mapp/Dunaway hearing and concluded there was probable cause to arrest defendant. We find tha......
-
People v. McUllin
...was arrested without probable cause and if so, what evidence, if any, should be suppressed as the fruit of an unlawful arrest (152 A.D.3d 461 [1st Dept 2017]). remittal, the court held a Mapp/Dunaway hearing and concluded there was probable cause to arrest defendant. We find that the record......