People v. Randall

187 A.D.2d 679, 591 N.Y.S.2d 788, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13202
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 23, 1992
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 187 A.D.2d 679 (People v. Randall) 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. Randall, 187 A.D.2d 679, 591 N.Y.S.2d 788, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13202 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Opinion

Appeals by the defendant from three judgments of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Naro, J.), all rendered April 21, 1989, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and criminal impersonation in the [680]*680first degree under Indictment No. 5985/87, robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree, and criminal impersonation in the first degree under Indictment No. 6153/87, and robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree, and criminal impersonation in the first degree under Indictment No. 6169/87, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

The defendant and another person were charged in a series of indictments with committing robberies and other crimes in both Queens County and New York County. At the outset of the pretrial hearings herein, the prosecutor reported that in the Supreme Court, New York County, it had already been determined that the police had probable cause to arrest the defendant and, therefore, that issue should not be litigated again. After the court so ruled, the defense counsel remarked that, as to the issue of probable cause to arrest, "as far as your Honor goes with that ruling, I agree”. Thus, the defendant expressly waived his present claim that there was no probable cause to arrest him (see generally, People v Ford, 62 NY2d 275; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245), and that any fruits of his arrest must be suppressed. Moreover, a Mapp hearing was never held and there is no record before us upon which to review the defendant’s claim.

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Lawrence, J. P., Copertino, Pizzuto and Santucci, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Sagado
228 A.D.2d 454 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
187 A.D.2d 679, 591 N.Y.S.2d 788, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13202, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-randall-nyappdiv-1992.