People v. Mitchell
| Decision Date | 10 September 2014 |
| Citation | 2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 06108,120 A.D.3d 1265,992 N.Y.S.2d 112 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Damon MITCHELL, appellant. |
120 A.D.3d 1265
992 N.Y.S.2d 112
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 06108
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,
v.
Damon MITCHELL, appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Sept. 10, 2014.
[992 N.Y.S.2d 113]
Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, N.Y. (Ellen Dille of counsel), for appellant.
Daniel M. Donovan, Jr., District Attorney, Staten Island, N.Y. (Morrie I. Kleinbart and Anne Grady of counsel), for respondent.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., L. PRISCILLA HALL, SANDRA L. SGROI, and JOSEPH J. MALTESE, JJ.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Collini, J.), rendered May 4, 2011, convicting him of robbery in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, 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 statements he made to law enforcement officials, identification testimony, and physical evidence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant was convicted of two separate robberies on Staten Island. The first occurred at a laundromat and the second took place two days later at a delicatessen. On appeal, the defendant contends, inter alia, that the police lacked reasonable suspicion to stop and detain him on the street, and therefore, the Supreme Court erred in denying his motion to suppress statements he made to law enforcement officials, identification testimony, and physical evidence recovered from his person. However, contrary to the defendant's contention, the evidence adduced at the hearing established that the police officers had reasonable suspicion to stop and detain him, and the suppression motion was properly denied on that ground ( see People v. Brannon, 16 N.Y.3d 596, 601–602, 925 N.Y.S.2d 393, 949 N.E.2d 484, People v. De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d 210, 386 N.Y.S.2d 375, 352 N.E.2d 562; People v. Shuler, 98 A.D.3d 695, 949 N.Y.S.2d 758; People v. Davenport, 92 A.D.3d 689, 939 N.Y.S.2d 473).
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his convictions of robbery in the second degree is unpreserved for appellate review ( seeCPL 470.05[2]; People v. Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 492, 872 N.Y.S.2d 395, 900 N.E.2d 946; People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 19, 629 N.Y.S.2d 173, 652 N.E.2d 919). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), we find that,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Moss
...428, 8 N.E.3d 803 ; People v. Jacobs, 71 A.D.3d 693, 894 N.Y.S.2d 908 ) and, in any event, without merit (see People v. Mitchell, 120 A.D.3d 1265, 1266, 992 N.Y.S.2d 112 ; People v. Tate, 110 A.D.3d 1013, 1014, 972 N.Y.S.2d 719 ). The defendant's contention, raised in his main brief, that h......
-
Mitchell v. Griffin, 17-CV-5584(KAM)
...rejected petitioner's claim of a Brady violation, holding that it was "unpreserved and, in any event, without merit." People v. Mitchell, 120 A.D.3d 1265 (2d Dep't 2014); (Pet. 76.) After reviewing the record, the appellate court finally concluded that "the verdict of guilt was not against ......
-
People v. Price
...weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15[5] ; People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 ; People v. Mitchell, 120 A.D.3d 1265, 992 N.Y.S.2d 112 ), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and obser......
-
People v. Mills
...to the complainant in the course of the commission of the robbery (see Penal Law §§ 10.00[9], 160.10[2][a] ; People v. Mitchell, 120 A.D.3d 1265, 1266, 992 N.Y.S.2d 112 ). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.......