People v. Garrido

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Garrido

34 A.D.3d 368, 824 N.Y.S.2d 295

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 28, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 34 A.D.3d 368 (People v. Garrido) 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

People v. Garrido, 34 A.D.3d 368, 824 N.Y.S.2d 295 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

[369]*369Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John S. Moore, J.), rendered May 7, 2003, as amended September 28, 2005, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of 10 years, and order, same court and Justice, entered on or about September 28, 2005, which denied defendant’s CPL article 440 motion seeking to reduce his conviction to a class A-II felony, unanimously 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]). Following an undercover officer’s negotiations with defendant, during which the officer saw a large amount of drugs in defendant’s apartment, the police lawfully approached the apartment in hopes that defendant would come out, at which point they intended to arrest him and then secure the apartment until a search warrant could be obtained. When it became clear that defendant had seen the officers, exigent circumstances existed for a warrantless entry. We do not find that the police created an artificial exigency (see United States v MacDonald, 916 F2d 766, 770-773 [2d Cir 1990], cert denied 498 US 1119 [1991]; People v Kelly, 261 AD2d 133, 134 [1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 824 [1999]; compare People v Levan, 62 NY2d 139, 146 [1984]). Once inside, the police properly conducted a security sweep to make certain no one else was in the apartment who could present a threat (see Maryland v Buie, 494 US 325 [1990]). As part of this sweep, it was reasonable to look in a closet to see if anyone was hiding inside, and drugs were properly discovered in plain view as a result.

Defendant was resentenced from a term of 15 years to life to a term of 10 years pursuant to the Drug Law Reform Act (L 2004, ch 738), and we perceive no basis for a further reduction. Defendant’s argument that his conviction should be reduced to second-degree possession is without merit (People v Utsey, 7 NY3d 398 [2006]; People v Quinones, 22 AD3d 218 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 817 [2006]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.E, Friedman, Nardelli, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.

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

[369]*369Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John S. Moore, J.), rendered May 7, 2003, as amended September 28, 2005, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of 10 years, and order, same court and Justice, entered on or about September 28, 2005, which denied defendant’s CPL article 440 motion seeking to reduce his conviction to a class A-II felony, unanimously 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]). Following an undercover officer’s negotiations with defendant, during which the officer saw a large amount of drugs in defendant’s apartment, the police lawfully approached the apartment in hopes that defendant would come out, at which point they intended to arrest him and then secure the apartment until a search warrant could be obtained. When it became clear that defendant had seen the officers, exigent circumstances existed for a warrantless entry. We do not find that the police created an artificial exigency (see United States v MacDonald, 916 F2d 766, 770-773 [2d Cir 1990], cert denied 498 US 1119 [1991]; People v Kelly, 261 AD2d 133, 134 [1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 824 [1999]; compare People v Levan, 62 NY2d 139, 146 [1984]). Once inside, the police properly conducted a security sweep to make certain no one else was in the apartment who could present a threat (see Maryland v Buie, 494 US 325 [1990]). As part of this sweep, it was reasonable to look in a closet to see if anyone was hiding inside, and drugs were properly discovered in plain view as a result.

Defendant was resentenced from a term of 15 years to life to a term of 10 years pursuant to the Drug Law Reform Act (L 2004, ch 738), and we perceive no basis for a further reduction. Defendant’s argument that his conviction should be reduced to second-degree possession is without merit (People v Utsey, 7 NY3d 398 [2006]; People v Quinones, 22 AD3d 218 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 817 [2006]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.E, Friedman, Nardelli, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 A.D.3d 368, 824 N.Y.S.2d 295, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-garrido-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack