People v. Williams
| Decision Date | 14 December 1992 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Stephon WILLIAMS, Appellant. Second Department |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Philip L. Weinstein, New York City (De Nice Powell, of counsel), for appellant.
Charles J. Hynes, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Jay M. Cohen, Richard T. Faughnan, and Linda Cantoni, of counsel), for respondent.
Before THOMPSON, J.P., and BALLETTA, EIBER and RITTER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lagana, J.), rendered July 9, 1990, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree, assault in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant was retried after this court reversed a prior judgment of conviction (see, People v. Williams, 141 A.D.2d 786, 529 N.Y.S.2d 862). Upon this appeal, the defendant again challenges the denial, after a hearing (Feldman, J.), of those branches of his motion which were to suppress (1) statements made by him at the precinct, after the police illegally arrested him in his home without a warrant, and (2) a gun which was seized after the defendant made those statements.
The hearing court and this court, upon the defendant's prior appeal, held that the illegality of the warrantless arrest was sufficiently attenuated from the recovery of the evidence by the passage of time, the giving of Miranda warnings, and the codefendant's statement which implicated the defendant. Therefore, since this court considered the defendant's contention on a prior appeal, the law of the case doctrine precludes this court from reconsidering the defendant's contention (see, Martin v. City of Cohoes, 37 N.Y.2d 162, 165, 371 N.Y.S.2d 687, 332 N.E.2d 867; Locilento v. Coleman Catholic High School, 134 A.D.2d 39, 43, 523 N.Y.S.2d 198). Moreover, although the law of the case doctrine is not an absolute mandate, it may only be vitiated in "extraordinary circumstances", such as a change in the law (see, Weiss v. Flushing Natl. Bank, 176 A.D.2d 797, 798, 575 N.Y.S.2d 126; Szajna v. Rand, 131 A.D.2d 840, 517 N.Y.S.2d 201). In the instant case, extraordinary circumstances do not exist which warrant the reconsideration of the defendant's claim. Although after the defendant's first appeal, the Court of Appeals held that the giving of Miranda warnings was not sufficient to provide attenuation from an illegal warrantless arrest (see, People v. Harris, 77 N.Y.2d 434, 568 N.Y.S.2d 702, 570 N.E.2d 1051), that determination does not warrant reconsideration of the defendant's contention. Upon the defendant's prior appeal, this court held that the illegality was sufficiently attenuated not only by the giving of Miranda warnings, but also by the passage of time and the fact that the codefendant made a statement implicating the defendant (see, People v. Conyers, 68 N.Y.2d 982, 983, 510 N.Y.S.2d 552, 503 N.E.2d 108).
Moreover, although it was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Quartararo
...People v. Taylor, 87 A.D.2d 771, 450 N.Y.S.2d 370, aff'd 57 N.Y.2d 729, 454 N.Y.S.2d 976, 440 N.E.2d 1323; see also, People v. Williams, 188 A.D.2d 573, 591 N.Y.S.2d 467; People v. Claudio, 130 A.D.2d 759, 515 N.Y.S.2d 845). In the context of the present case, the question of the extent to ......
-
People v. Herner
...583 N.Y.S.2d 556 (3rd Dept.1992), lv. denied 80 N.Y.2d 831, 587 N.Y.S.2d 916, 600 N.E.2d 643 (1992), and People v. Williams, 188 A.D.2d 573, 591 N.Y.S.2d 467 (2nd Dept.1992), I find that the statements would have been sufficiently attenuated from any Payton violation that they need not be A......
-
People v. Jose
...Corp., 13 A.D.2d 469, 212 N.Y.S.2d 444) such as a change in the applicable law since the first appeal was decided (People v. Williams, 188 A.D.2d 573, 574, 591 N.Y.S.2d 467, lv. denied 81 N.Y.2d 894, 597 N.Y.S.2d 957, 613 N.E.2d 989). No such circumstances exist here. Having already decided......
-
People v. Guin
...case doctrine is not mandated in all cases, only extraordinary circumstances will justify a departure from it (see, People v. Williams, 188 A.D.2d 573, 591 N.Y.S.2d 467; People v. Finley, 104 A.D.2d 450, 479 N.Y.S.2d 63). Since the defendant did not make such a showing and the record otherw......