People v. Hale

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hale

300 A.D.2d 55, 751 N.Y.S.2d 25, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12020

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

DecidedDecember 10, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 300 A.D.2d 55 (People v. Hale) 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. Hale, 300 A.D.2d 55, 751 N.Y.S.2d 25, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12020 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edwin Torres, J.), rendered September 22, 1999, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 25 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s suppression motion was properly denied in all respects. When, in a desolate area after midnight, a livery cab came to an unexplained stop in the middle lane and the driver immediately exited the cab simultaneously with defendant and another passenger, whereupon the driver flailed his arms as he pointed at a police officer while defendant and the other passenger looked at the officer and then fled in opposite directions, there was reasonable suspicion to justify the pursuit of defendant (People v Smith, 243 AD2d 412, lv denied 91 NY2d 930; People v Shaw, 208 AD2d 382, lv denied 84 NY2d 1038) and probable cause to arrest him upon recovery of the weapon that he discarded during his flight. As a result of this lawful arrest, the police properly obtained a photograph of defendant and, in a confirmatory identification (see People v Rodriguez, 79 NY2d 445), showed it to witnesses with whom he had a long-standing familiarity.

Defendant’s conclusory allegations were insufficient to warrant a Dunaway hearing as to the propriety of his later arrest for murder (People v Mendoza, 82 NY2d 415).

[56]*56On the existing record, we conclude that defendant received meaningful representation (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713-714). Counsel pursued a reasonable strategy by foregoing a justification defense in favor of a stronger defense (see People v Rhodes, 281 AD2d 225, lv denied 96 NY2d 906).

Defendant’s remaining contentions, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief, are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them. Concur — Williams, P.J., Nardelli, Saxe, Sullivan and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edwin Torres, J.), rendered September 22, 1999, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 25 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s suppression motion was properly denied in all respects. When, in a desolate area after midnight, a livery cab came to an unexplained stop in the middle lane and the driver immediately exited the cab simultaneously with defendant and another passenger, whereupon the driver flailed his arms as he pointed at a police officer while defendant and the other passenger looked at the officer and then fled in opposite directions, there was reasonable suspicion to justify the pursuit of defendant (People v Smith, 243 AD2d 412, lv denied 91 NY2d 930; People v Shaw, 208 AD2d 382, lv denied 84 NY2d 1038) and probable cause to arrest him upon recovery of the weapon that he discarded during his flight. As a result of this lawful arrest, the police properly obtained a photograph of defendant and, in a confirmatory identification (see People v Rodriguez, 79 NY2d 445), showed it to witnesses with whom he had a long-standing familiarity.

Defendant’s conclusory allegations were insufficient to warrant a Dunaway hearing as to the propriety of his later arrest for murder (People v Mendoza, 82 NY2d 415).

[56]*56On the existing record, we conclude that defendant received meaningful representation (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713-714). Counsel pursued a reasonable strategy by foregoing a justification defense in favor of a stronger defense (see People v Rhodes, 281 AD2d 225, lv denied 96 NY2d 906).

Defendant’s remaining contentions, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief, are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them. Concur — Williams, P.J., Nardelli, Saxe, Sullivan and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

300 A.D.2d 55, 751 N.Y.S.2d 25, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12020, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hale-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack