People v. McLean

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. McLean

17 A.D.3d 1150, 793 N.Y.S.2d 855, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4611

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

DecidedApril 29, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 17 A.D.3d 1150 (People v. McLean) 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. McLean, 17 A.D.3d 1150, 793 N.Y.S.2d 855, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4611 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Ontario County Court (Frederick G. Reed, J.), rendered January 16, 2004. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of driving while intoxicated as a felony (two counts), aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree and unauthorized use of a vehicle in the third degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of driving while intoxicated as a class D felony (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [2], [3]; § 1193 [1] [c] [ii]), aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree (§ 511 [3] [a]) and unauthorized use of a vehicle in the third degree (Penal Law § 165.05 [1]). Contrary to the contention of defendant, the evidence at the suppression hearing is sufficient to establish that his arrest was supported by probable cause (see People v O’Hanlon, 5 AD3d 1012 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 645 [2004]; People v Tittensor, 244 AD2d 784 [1997]). County Court properly admitted in evidence recordings of the 13 calls to 911 made by defendant prior to his arrest (see People v Knight, 280 AD2d 937, 938-939 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 864 [2001]). The court properly denied the request of defendant for a missing witness charge with respect to one of the [1151]*1151passengers in the vehicle because there is no indication that the passenger was under the People’s control (see People v Farrow, 159 AD2d 376 [1990], lv denied 76 NY2d 787 [1990]). We reject defendant’s contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present— Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Kehoe, Martoche and Hayes, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Ontario County Court (Frederick G. Reed, J.), rendered January 16, 2004. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of driving while intoxicated as a felony (two counts), aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree and unauthorized use of a vehicle in the third degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of driving while intoxicated as a class D felony (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [2], [3]; § 1193 [1] [c] [ii]), aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree (§ 511 [3] [a]) and unauthorized use of a vehicle in the third degree (Penal Law § 165.05 [1]). Contrary to the contention of defendant, the evidence at the suppression hearing is sufficient to establish that his arrest was supported by probable cause (see People v O’Hanlon, 5 AD3d 1012 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 645 [2004]; People v Tittensor, 244 AD2d 784 [1997]). County Court properly admitted in evidence recordings of the 13 calls to 911 made by defendant prior to his arrest (see People v Knight, 280 AD2d 937, 938-939 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 864 [2001]). The court properly denied the request of defendant for a missing witness charge with respect to one of the [1151]*1151passengers in the vehicle because there is no indication that the passenger was under the People’s control (see People v Farrow, 159 AD2d 376 [1990], lv denied 76 NY2d 787 [1990]). We reject defendant’s contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present— Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Kehoe, Martoche and Hayes, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 A.D.3d 1150, 793 N.Y.S.2d 855, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4611, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mclean-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack