People v. Parker
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
| Citation | 180 A.D.3d 1072,118 N.Y.S.3d 223 |
| Docket Number | Ind. No. 77/17,2018–01314 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Shamar A. PARKER, Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 26 February 2020 |
180 A.D.3d 1072
118 N.Y.S.3d 223
The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent,
v.
Shamar A. PARKER, Appellant.
2018–01314
Ind. No. 77/17
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Submitted - November 18, 2019
February 26, 2020
Steven A. Feldman, Uniondale, N.Y. (Arza Feldman of counsel), for appellant.
William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Kirsten A. Rappleyea of counsel), for respondent.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., SHERI S. ROMAN, HECTOR D. LASALLE, PAUL WOOTEN, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Peter M. Forman, J.), rendered December 19, 2017, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree,
upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
We agree with the County Court's determination to deny that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress a gun recovered from his person during a traffic stop. On a motion to suppress evidence, the defendant bears the ultimate burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, when challenging the legality of a search and seizure, but the People bear the initial burden of showing the legality of the police conduct (see People v. Whitehurst, 25 N.Y.2d 389, 391, 306 N.Y.S.2d 673, 254 N.E.2d 905 ; People v. Spann, 82 A.D.3d 1013, 1014, 918 N.Y.S.2d 588 ; People v. Thomas, 291 A.D.2d 462, 463, 738 N.Y.S.2d 357 ). The credibility determinations of the hearing court are entitled to great deference on appeal and will not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see People v. Watson, 163 A.D.3d 855, 856–857, 81 N.Y.S.3d 449 ; see People v. Casey, 149 A.D.3d 770, 771, 52 N.Y.S.3d 377 ). Here, a police officer's testimony at the suppression hearing established that the police had the authority to stop the vehicle in which the defendant was a passenger based on the driver's failure to signal while pulling into traffic from its parked position at the curb (see...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Rhames
...court are entitled to great deference on appeal and will not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record" ( People v. Parker, 180 A.D.3d 1072, 1072, 118 N.Y.S.3d 223 ; see People v. Black, 172 A.D.3d 895, 896, 100 N.Y.S.3d 77 ). " ‘The rule is that testimony which is incredible an......
-
People v. Tates
...of a search and seizure, but the People bear the initial burden of showing the legality of the police conduct" ( People v. Parker, 180 A.D.3d 1072, 1072, 118 N.Y.S.3d 223 ; see People v. Ravenell, 175 A.D.3d 1437, 1438, 107 N.Y.S.3d 408 ). The People's current 137 N.Y.S.3d 370 contention th......
-
People v. Potter
...of a search and seizure, but the People bear the initial burden of showing the legality of the police conduct" ( People v. Parker, 180 A.D.3d 1072, 1072, 118 N.Y.S.3d 223 ; see People v. Faulk, 185 A.D.3d 953, 954, 128 N.Y.S.3d 43 ). "The credibility determinations of the hearing court are ......
-
People v. Lawrence
...it does not matter whether his wallet was opened and the forged credit cards were discovered at the police station or at the hospital. 180 A.D.3d 1072 The content of the detective's report does not contain the requisite "additional pertinent facts" to support a reopening of the suppression ......