People v. Martinez

187 A.D.2d 992
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 18, 1992·No. Appeal No. 2·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject defendant’s contention that his pleas should be vacated on the ground that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because his attorney jointly represented three codefendants charged under one of the indictments. Defendant failed to demonstrate "that a significant possibility of a conflict of interest existed bearing a substantial relationship to the conduct of the defense” (People v Recupero, 73 NY2d 877, 879; see also, People v McDonald, 68 NY2d 1; People v Alicea, 61 NY2d 23, 30, n; People v Gomberg, 38 NY2d 307). Nothing in the record suggests that defendant decided to enter into the plea bargain agreement for any reason other than his own best interests. [993]*993We further conclude that defendant’s pleas were knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently made.

Finally, we reject defendant’s contention that the court erred by summarily denying his motion to suppress contraband seized after defendant’s arrest at his home pursuant to an arrest warrant. The evidence, consisting of cocaine and a handgun, was observed in plain view by the officers in the upstairs area of defendant’s residence. We conclude that the officers were justified in entering that area to effectuate the arrest warrant because they had observed two men, who were believed to be additional subjects of the arrest warrant, enter defendant’s residence. Additionally, the officers were justified in entering that area to conduct a limited protective sweep search because they possessed knowledge that there were other persons in the residence who might have posed a danger to those on the scene (see. People v Rivera, 172 AD2d 1059, lv denied 78 NY2d 973; see also, Maryland v Buie, 494 US 325). The officers thereafter secured a search warrant for the premises and seized the contraband upon execution of the warrant. Under the circumstances of this case, the officers’ conduct was reasonable and proper (see, People v Febus, 157 AD2d 380, 384-385, lv granted 76 NY2d 898, appeal dismissed 77 NY2d 835). (Appeal from Judgment of Onondaga County Court, Mulroy, J. —Criminal Possession Controlled Substance, 1st Degree.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Green, Balio, Davis and Doerr, JJ.

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

People v. Martinez, 187 A.D.2d 992 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

187 A.D.2d 992 (People v. Martinez) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Marshall
119 A.D.3d 612 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
People v. Roy Ellison, Jr.
2004 NY Slip Op 24083 (New York Supreme Court, Monroe County, 2004)
People v. Ellison
4 Misc. 3d 319 (New York Supreme Court, 2004)
People v. Bost
264 A.D.2d 425 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
People v. Brown
262 A.D.2d 419 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
People v. Dargen
201 A.D.2d 882 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
People v. Jordan
190 A.D.2d 990 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
People v. Martinez
187 A.D.2d 993 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)