Home/Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York/People v. Hewitt

People v. Hewitt

291 A.D.2d 458, 737 N.Y.S.2d 548, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1674
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 11, 2002
StatusPublished

This text of 291 A.D.2d 458 (People v. Hewitt) 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. Hewitt, 291 A.D.2d 458, 737 N.Y.S.2d 548, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1674 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Roman, J.), rendered September 21, 2000, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the arresting officer lacked probable cause to arrest him. Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the arresting officer had probable cause to arrest him pursuant to the “fellow officer rule” (People v Maldonado, 86 NY2d 631, 635; see, People v Bigelow, 66 NY2d 417, 423; People v McRay, 51 NY2d 594, 602). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

The Supreme Court properly permitted the People to introduce evidence of statements made by the defendant’s accomplice (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230; People v Marks, [459]*4596 NY2d 67, cert denied 362 US 912; People v Thompson, 186 AD2d 768; People v Sostre, 70 AD2d 40, affd 51 NY2d 958; see also, People v Ayala, 273 AD2d 40; People v DeJesus, 272 AD2d 61).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Felix, 58 NY2d 156; People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Feuerstein, J.P., Krausman, Friedmann and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Maldonado
658 N.E.2d 1028 (New York Court of Appeals, 1995)
People v. Marks
160 N.E.2d 26 (New York Court of Appeals, 1959)
People v. Crimmins
326 N.E.2d 787 (New York Court of Appeals, 1975)
People v. McRay
416 N.E.2d 1015 (New York Court of Appeals, 1980)
People v. Sostre
416 N.E.2d 1038 (New York Court of Appeals, 1980)
People v. Felix
446 N.E.2d 757 (New York Court of Appeals, 1983)
People v. Bigelow
488 N.E.2d 451 (New York Court of Appeals, 1985)
People v. Sostre
70 A.D.2d 40 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1979)
People v. Suitte
90 A.D.2d 80 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)
People v. Thompson
186 A.D.2d 768 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
People v. DeJesus
272 A.D.2d 61 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
People v. Ayala
273 A.D.2d 40 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
291 A.D.2d 458, 737 N.Y.S.2d 548, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1674, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hewitt-nyappdiv-2002.