EAST, JR., RONALD, PEOPLE v

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 3, 2014
DocketKA 13-01844
StatusPublished

This text of EAST, JR., RONALD, PEOPLE v (EAST, JR., RONALD, PEOPLE v) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
EAST, JR., RONALD, PEOPLE v, (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Opinion

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

787 KA 13-01844 PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, AND SCONIERS, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

RONALD EAST, JR., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

LOTEMPIO & BROWN, P.C., BUFFALO (MICHAEL H. KOOSHOIAN OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

FRANK A. SEDITA, III, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (ASHLEY R. SMALL OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (M. William Boller, A.J.), rendered June 28, 2013. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed and the matter is remitted to Supreme Court, Erie County, for proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03 [3]). We reject defendant’s contention that the police lacked probable cause to stop his vehicle. It is well settled that a traffic stop is lawful where “a police officer has probable cause to believe that the driver of an automobile has committed a traffic violation” (People v Robinson, 97 NY2d 341, 349; see People v Binion, 100 AD3d 1514, 1515, lv denied 21 NY3d 911). Here, the police had probable cause to stop defendant’s vehicle because one of the officers observed him driving a motor vehicle and holding a cell phone to his ear while the vehicle was in motion (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1225-c [2] [a], [b]; People v Nunez, 82 AD3d 1128, 1129, lv denied 16 NY3d 898). Shortly after defendant exited the vehicle, one of the officers observed a handgun in plain view by the driver’s seat of the vehicle, providing probable cause to arrest defendant (see People v Johnson, 114 AD3d 1132, 1132).

Entered: July 3, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

People v. Robinson
767 N.E.2d 638 (New York Court of Appeals, 2001)
People v. Nunez
82 A.D.3d 1128 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
People v. Binion
100 A.D.3d 1514 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
People v. Johnson
114 A.D.3d 1132 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
EAST, JR., RONALD, PEOPLE v, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/east-jr-ronald-people-v-nyappdiv-2014.