People v. Washington

• Decision Date: 25 May 1983
• Citation: 94 A.D.2d 934,464 N.Y.S.2d 65
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Adrian WASHINGTON, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 65

464 N.Y.S.2d 65

94 A.D.2d 934

PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Adrian WASHINGTON, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

Fourth Department.

May 25, 1983.

Rose H. Sconiers by Charles Halvorsen, Buffalo, pro se brief by appellant.

Richard J. Arcara by Deborah Sorbini, Buffalo, for respondent.

Before DILLON, P.J., and HANCOCK, CALLAHAN, DENMAN and GREEN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

Defendant was convicted of four counts of robbery in the first degree and one count of burglary in the first degree. He contends, inter alia, that a jacket, seized by police while effecting defendant's warrantless arrest in his home, should have been suppressed. In denying the suppression motion, the court expressed the view that the decision in Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 63 L.Ed.2d 639, was not to be retrospectively applied. On that basis, the court found it unnecessary to take evidence to determine whether the warrantless arrest was justified by exigent circumstances. Subsequent to trial it was held that the rule of Payton is to be applied to pending cases (United States v. Johnson, 457 U.S. 537, 102 S.Ct. 2579, 73 L.Ed.2d 202).

While ordinarily we would hold the appeal and remit the case for an appropriate hearing (see People v. Maerling, 89 A.D.2d 1001, 454 N.Y.S.2d 318), that procedure need not be followed here. The evidence of defendant's guilt was overwhelming and even if it were demonstrated that the jacket should have been suppressed, there is no reasonable possibility that its admission into evidence might have contributed to defendant's conviction (see People v. Goodman, 54 N.Y.2d 451, 446 N.Y.S.2d 202, 430 N.E.2d 1255).

We have examined the other issues raised by defendant and find them to be without merit.

Judgment unanimously affirmed.