People v. Harvey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Harvey

146 A.D.2d 585, 536 N.Y.S.2d 507, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 118

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

DecidedJanuary 9, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 146 A.D.2d 585 (People v. Harvey) 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. Harvey, 146 A.D.2d 585, 536 N.Y.S.2d 507, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 118 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Sherman, J.), both rendered August 22, 1984, convicting him of attempted burglary in the second degree under indictment No. 1017/83, and criminal possession of stolen property in the second degree under indictment No. 1387/83, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

The defendant contends that the court erred when, after a Dunaway-Mapp hearing, it failed to suppress certain evidence obtained after his arrest as a result of a police stop of the vehicle in which he was a passenger. The defendant asserts that the stop was unlawful and that probable cause to arrest him was based on evidence and information obtained as a result of that police illegality. We disagree.

On the evening in question the arresting officer received a radio call about a possible burglary committed by two black males. Within a few minutes and approximately two blocks from the scene of the burglary the officer saw a van slow down and pick up two black males carrying some items. The rear lights of the van were not operating, offering reasonable grounds to suspect a violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law and justifying a police stop of the vehicle (People v Ellis, 62 NY2d 393, 396).

When the driver got out to show the officer his license and registration, he left the door wide open, affording the officer a view inside, whereupon the officer could see 2 or 3 other persons and some items of jewelry in plain view. Five minutes later a radio car arrived with the complaining witness, who [586]*586looked in the van and identified several items belonging to him. This information was enough to provide probable cause (People v Landy, 59 NY2d 369, 376). Therefore, the search and seizure of the items in question as well as the arrest of the defendant was proper and suppression of the fruits of the search was properly denied.

The defendant also argues that the sentencing court abused its discretion by disavowing its initial sentence commitment. We note that the defendant failed to move to vacate his pleas at the time sentences were imposed. In any event, the argument is without merit. The defendant, by failing to appear on the scheduled sentencing date vitiated any prior negotiated agreement by breaching a specific condition imposed at the time that the pleas were entered (see, People v Warren, 121 AD2d 418). Thompson, J. P., Rubin, Spatt and Balletta, JJ., concur.

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

— Appeal by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Sherman, J.), both rendered August 22, 1984, convicting him of attempted burglary in the second degree under indictment No. 1017/83, and criminal possession of stolen property in the second degree under indictment No. 1387/83, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

The defendant contends that the court erred when, after a Dunaway-Mapp hearing, it failed to suppress certain evidence obtained after his arrest as a result of a police stop of the vehicle in which he was a passenger. The defendant asserts that the stop was unlawful and that probable cause to arrest him was based on evidence and information obtained as a result of that police illegality. We disagree.

On the evening in question the arresting officer received a radio call about a possible burglary committed by two black males. Within a few minutes and approximately two blocks from the scene of the burglary the officer saw a van slow down and pick up two black males carrying some items. The rear lights of the van were not operating, offering reasonable grounds to suspect a violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law and justifying a police stop of the vehicle (People v Ellis, 62 NY2d 393, 396).

When the driver got out to show the officer his license and registration, he left the door wide open, affording the officer a view inside, whereupon the officer could see 2 or 3 other persons and some items of jewelry in plain view. Five minutes later a radio car arrived with the complaining witness, who [586]*586looked in the van and identified several items belonging to him. This information was enough to provide probable cause (People v Landy, 59 NY2d 369, 376). Therefore, the search and seizure of the items in question as well as the arrest of the defendant was proper and suppression of the fruits of the search was properly denied.

The defendant also argues that the sentencing court abused its discretion by disavowing its initial sentence commitment. We note that the defendant failed to move to vacate his pleas at the time sentences were imposed. In any event, the argument is without merit. The defendant, by failing to appear on the scheduled sentencing date vitiated any prior negotiated agreement by breaching a specific condition imposed at the time that the pleas were entered (see, People v Warren, 121 AD2d 418). Thompson, J. P., Rubin, Spatt and Balletta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

146 A.D.2d 585, 536 N.Y.S.2d 507, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 118, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-harvey-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack