People v. Patron
| Decision Date | 06 July 2016 |
| Citation | 2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 05391,35 N.Y.S.3d 243,141 A.D.3d 545 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Azeem PATRON, appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
141 A.D.3d 545
35 N.Y.S.3d 243
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 05391
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,
v.
Azeem PATRON, appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
July 6, 2016.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Samuel Brown of counsel), for appellant.
Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Rhea A. Grob of counsel), for respondent.
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, J.P., L. PRISCILLA HALL, LEONARD B. AUSTIN, and BETSY BARROS, JJ.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garnett, J.), rendered May 30, 2013, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Gary, J.), of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in permitting the People to resubmit the case to a second grand jury panel after the first grand jury could not muster 12 votes either to indict the defendant or dismiss the charges against him is unpreserved for appellate review (see
CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Brown, 81 N.Y.2d 798, 595 N.Y.S.2d 370, 611 N.E.2d 271 ). In any event, the contention is without merit, since the first grand jury's inability to either indict or dismiss was a legitimate reason for the new submission, and “the underlying circumstances do not provide clear indication that the first grand jury's decisional authority was being subverted” (People v. Credle, 17 N.Y.3d 556, 562, 934 N.Y.S.2d 77, 958 N.E.2d 111 ; see People v. Pryor, 5 A.D.3d 222, 772 N.Y.S.2d 823 ).
The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress the gun recovered from his person during a traffic stop. The police officer's testimony at the suppression hearing established that the police had authority to stop the livery cab in which the defendant was a passenger based on the driver's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Watson
...(see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1163[a] ; People v. Guthrie, 25 N.Y.3d 130, 133, 8 N.Y.S.3d 237, 30 N.E.3d 880 ; People v. Patron, 141 A.D.3d 545, 545, 35 N.Y.S.3d 243 ; People v. Davis, 103 A.D.3d 810, 811, 962 N.Y.S.2d 174 ; People v. Glover, 84 A.D.3d 977, 978, 921 N.Y.S.2d 896 ). Officer......
-
People v. Diaz
...A.D.3d 805Upon making a valid traffic stop, the police had discretion to order the occupants to exit the vehicle (see People v. Patron, 141 A.D.3d 545, 35 N.Y.S.3d 243 ; People v. Davis, 103 A.D.3d at 811, 962 N.Y.S.2d 174 ; People v. Grant, 83 A.D.3d at 864, 921 N.Y.S.2d 285 ; see also Peo......
-
People v. Baez
...Robinson, 97 N.Y.2d at 349, 741 N.Y.S.2d 147, 767 N.E.2d 638 ; People v. Watson, 163 A.D.3d at 857, 81 N.Y.S.3d 449 ; People v. Patron, 141 A.D.3d 545, 545, 35 N.Y.S.3d 243 ). On this record, we discern no basis to disturb that determination in the exercise of our factual review power. More......
-
People v. Parker
...to conduct a pat down search of the defendant's waistband and to remove the gun found therein (see CPL 140.50[3] ; People v. Patron, 141 A.D.3d 545, 545–546, 35 N.Y.S.3d 243 ; People v. Grant, 83 A.D.3d at 863, 921 N.Y.S.2d 285, 921 N.Y.S.2d 285 ). The defendant's contention that the County......