People v. Vina
| Decision Date | 29 April 1975 |
| Citation | 47 A.D.2d 895,367 N.Y.S.2d 268 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Benito Hernandez VINA, a/k/a Benito Vina Hernandez, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
T. J. Bryan, New York City, for respondent.
L. F. Padilla, New York City, for defendant-appellant.
Before MARKEWICH, J.P., and MURPHY, TILZER and CAPOZZOLI, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, rendered November 14, 1973, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of possession of a weapon as a felony reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interests of justice, the order of said court, entered September 28, 1973, denying defendant's motion to suppress certain physical evidence and statements allegedly made by him, reversed, on the law, and said motion granted, and the case remanded to Supreme Court, New York County, for further proceedings consistent herewith.
At the suppression hearing, Officer Guzman testified that he was in the vicinity of certain premises, as an undercover officer, awaiting the arrival of a courier with five kilos of cocaine pursuant to a pre-arranged appointment. Earlier that day he claims he saw defendant (whom he had previously observed on other occasions and at other locations carrying a black attache case) exit from a late model car, enter the premises under surveillance, exit a short time later and drive away in another car. Some 3 1/2 hours later, Guzman testified that he saw defendant return on foot, carrying a black attache case and a brown shopping bag. In the belief that appellant was the courier, Guzman said he then followed defendant into the building.
At this point, the testimony given at the hearing is conflicting. Guzman stated that he identified himself, asked defendant his name and what he had in the shopping bag and attache case, and was invited into defendant's apartment. Then, according to Guzman, defendant (who told him he was a jewelry salesman) opened the case and shopping bag for the officer's perusal. Guzman claims he was then about to leave the apartment, satisfied that his suspicions were unfounded (despite the fact that each of five boxes in the bag were clearly inscribed 'revolver'), when a box of .38 calibre ammunition fell out of the bag. A further search then disclosed 5 revolvers, each enclosed in a separate box, and 2 boxes of ammunition. Guzman then concludes by averring that at this point he arrested defendant, gave him his Miranda warnings, called for assistance and received an incriminating admission by defendant that the guns had been purchased from an elderly gentleman on Ninth Avenue.
Defendant (corroborated by his wife), on the other hand, testified that Guzman, with gun drawn, ordered defendant into the latter's apartment where he (Guzman) searched the attache case and shopping bag.
After denial of the suppression motion, the trial commenced. Counsel requested a short adjournment to obtain certain minutes in a tangentially related federal case. The application was denied. Nevertheless, counsel obtained a portion of the minutes, but the trial court refused to permit its use to impeach Guzman's testimony by showing (from his testimony in the federal case), inter alia, that the officer was not at the location for the purpose stated, since he had been relieved of his assignment the previous day; and that the officer knew the actual identity of the courier, who was not the defendant herein.
Thereafter, apparently frustrated by what defendant considered erroneous rulings by the trial court, a plea of guilty was entered.
Although we agree with respondent that, except in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Waits v. People, 84SC391
...288, 95 S.Ct. 886, 889, 43 L.Ed.2d 196 (1975); Von Pickrell v. People, 163 Colo. 591, 431 P.2d 1003 (1967); People v. Vina, 47 A.D.2d 895, 367 N.Y.S.2d 268 (N.Y.App.Div.1975) (statute preserves review of denial of suppression after guilty plea); People v. Miller, 33 Cal.3d 545, 658 P.2d 132......
-
People v. Maietta
...822 (1975)). We have held that "[t]he general rule is that a plea of guilty is a waiver of all nonjurisdictional defects. (People v. Vina, 47 A.D.2d 895 .) ..." (People v. Giuliano, 52 A.D.2d 240, 243, 383 N.Y.S.2d 878 (1st Dept.1976)). Further, "[a] guilty plea generally represents a compr......
-
Quintero v. Heath
...raising a claim of error by the suppression court under New York State law. See Brief for Appellant at 8 - 9, citing People v. Vina, 367 N.Y.S.2d 268 (N.Y. App. Div. 1975) ("although we agree with respondent that, except in rare circumstances not here presented, a valid guilty plea generall......
-
People v. Corti
...761, affd. 36 N.Y.2d 829, 370 N.Y.S.2d 904, 331 N.E.2d 684; People v. Giuliano, 52 A.D.2d 240, 383 N.Y.S.2d 878; People v. Vina, 47 A.D.2d 895, 367 N.Y.S.2d 268.) For that reason, it is said that there are "rare instances in which the right to appeal survives a plea of guilty". (People v. A......