People v. Speckman

157 A.D.2d 599, 550 N.Y.S.2d 348, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 717

This text of 157 A.D.2d 599 (People v. Speckman) 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. Speckman, 157 A.D.2d 599, 550 N.Y.S.2d 348, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 717 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Opinion

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Joseph Cerbone, J., at suppression hearing, plea and sentence), rendered September 10, 1987, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and attempted burglary in the [600]*600third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to two concurrent indeterminate terms of from 2 to 4 years’ imprisonment, unanimously affirmed.

Contrary to defendant’s assertions, a review of the record reveals that the hearing court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress evidence. The police had a duty to approach and inquire as to defendant’s vehicle. It was illegally parked, half on the sidewalk, in a deserted neighborhood in the early morning hours and litter was being thrown from the passenger side of the opened vehicle. Because the gun subsequently recovered from the defendant was in "plain view”, it was therefore properly seized (see, People v Bronston, 68 NY2d 880; People v De Bour, 40 NY2d 210; People v Ingle, 36 NY2d 413).

Because there is no basis for disturbing the hearing court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to suppress (see, People v Rogers, 48 NY2d 167; People v Pascale, 48 NY2d 997), we do not reach defendant’s unpreserved contention that reversal by this court, granting defendant’s motion to suppress and dismissing the weapons indictment, would require vacatur of defendant’s plea to attempted burglary, which was induced by the promise of a concurrent sentence. In any event, the plea to the attempted burglary charge was not conditioned upon the propriety of the court’s suppression ruling. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ross, Milonas, Smith and Rubin, JJ.

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

Related

People v. Ingle
330 N.E.2d 39 (New York Court of Appeals, 1975)
People v. De Bour
352 N.E.2d 562 (New York Court of Appeals, 1976)
People v. Rogers
397 N.E.2d 709 (New York Court of Appeals, 1979)
People v. Pascale
401 N.E.2d 904 (New York Court of Appeals, 1980)
People v. Bronston
501 N.E.2d 579 (New York Court of Appeals, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
157 A.D.2d 599, 550 N.Y.S.2d 348, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 717, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-speckman-nyappdiv-1990.