People v. Gala (Christian)

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Gala (Christian)

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedApril 22, 2019

Docket2019 NYSlipOp 50584(U)

StatusPublished

This text of People v. Gala (Christian) (People v. Gala (Christian)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Gala (Christian), (N.Y. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Christian Gala, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Diana M. Boyar, J.), rendered July 24, 2013, convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of unlawful possession of marijuana, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Diana M. Boyar, J.), rendered July 24, 2013, affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant's suppression motion. There is no basis for disturbing the court's credibility determinations, which are supported by the record (see People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]; People v Martin, 112 AD3d 453, 454 [2013]). The record establishes that drugs were recovered from defendant as a result of a valid search incident to an arrest based on probable cause. Defendant was observed in a drug-prone location holding a clear plastic bag containing a green substance that the officer, based on his extensive training and experience, recognized as marijuana (see People v Banchon, 126 AD3d 462 [2015], lv denied 25 NY3d 1069 [2015]). Additionally, defendant held money in his other hand, was with another individual, and defendant placed the bag in his pocket as the officer approached. This conduct, both before and after the officer's approach, led the officer to a reasonable conclusion, based on his experience and training, that defendant had been in the process of exchanging money for drugs (see People v Jones, 90 NY2d 835 [1997]; People v McRay, 51 NY2d 594 [1980]).

The suppression court also properly declined to suppress defendant's spontaneous and voluntary statement to the police that one of the packages recovered from him contained a controlled substance (see People v Grant, 96 AD3d 779, 780 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 1026 [2012]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: April 22, 2019

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

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Christian Gala, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Diana M. Boyar, J.), rendered July 24, 2013, convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of unlawful possession of marijuana, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Diana M. Boyar, J.), rendered July 24, 2013, affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant's suppression motion. There is no basis for disturbing the court's credibility determinations, which are supported by the record (see People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]; People v Martin, 112 AD3d 453, 454 [2013]). The record establishes that drugs were recovered from defendant as a result of a valid search incident to an arrest based on probable cause. Defendant was observed in a drug-prone location holding a clear plastic bag containing a green substance that the officer, based on his extensive training and experience, recognized as marijuana (see People v Banchon, 126 AD3d 462 [2015], lv denied 25 NY3d 1069 [2015]). Additionally, defendant held money in his other hand, was with another individual, and defendant placed the bag in his pocket as the officer approached. This conduct, both before and after the officer's approach, led the officer to a reasonable conclusion, based on his experience and training, that defendant had been in the process of exchanging money for drugs (see People v Jones, 90 NY2d 835 [1997]; People v McRay, 51 NY2d 594 [1980]).

The suppression court also properly declined to suppress defendant's spontaneous and voluntary statement to the police that one of the packages recovered from him contained a controlled substance (see People v Grant, 96 AD3d 779, 780 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 1026 [2012]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: April 22, 2019

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

People v. Gala (Christian), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-gala-christian-nyappterm-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack