People v. Whitehead (Joseph)

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Whitehead (Joseph)

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedNovember 22, 2019

Docket2019 NYSlipOp 51863(U)

StatusPublished

This text of People v. Whitehead (Joseph) (People v. Whitehead (Joseph)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court 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. Whitehead (Joseph), (N.Y. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Joseph Whitehead, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Beth Beller, J. at suppression motion; Steven J. Hornstein, J. at trial), rendered April 23, 2018, after a nonjury trial, convicting him of driving while impaired, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Beth Beller, J. at suppression motion; Steven J. Hornstein, J. at trial), rendered April 23, 2018, affirmed.

The suppression court, adopting the findings of fact and conclusions of law made by a judicial hearing officer, properly denied defendant's suppression motion. Defendant's erratic driving on the Major Deegan Expressway at 1:25 a.m.—described by the arresting officer as being "unable to maintain control of his lane" and "swerv[ing]" from side to side approximately six times—provided reasonable suspicion necessary to justify the limited intrusion involved in an automobile stop (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1128[a]; People v Wohlers, 138 AD2d 957 [1988]; see also People v Robinson, 97 NY2d 341, 349 [2001]).

Defendant's conviction of driving while impaired (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192[1]) was supported by legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis for disturbing the court's determinations concerning credibility (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). The credited police testimony showed that after his vehicle was stopped, defendant exhibited visible signs of impairment by alcohol, his eyes were bloodshot and watery, his breath had an odor of alcohol and he admitted that he had consumed alcohol (see People v Cruz, 48 NY2d 419, 426-428 [1979], appeal dismissed 446 US 901 [1980]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: November 22, 2019

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

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Joseph Whitehead, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Beth Beller, J. at suppression motion; Steven J. Hornstein, J. at trial), rendered April 23, 2018, after a nonjury trial, convicting him of driving while impaired, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Beth Beller, J. at suppression motion; Steven J. Hornstein, J. at trial), rendered April 23, 2018, affirmed.

The suppression court, adopting the findings of fact and conclusions of law made by a judicial hearing officer, properly denied defendant's suppression motion. Defendant's erratic driving on the Major Deegan Expressway at 1:25 a.m.—described by the arresting officer as being "unable to maintain control of his lane" and "swerv[ing]" from side to side approximately six times—provided reasonable suspicion necessary to justify the limited intrusion involved in an automobile stop (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1128[a]; People v Wohlers, 138 AD2d 957 [1988]; see also People v Robinson, 97 NY2d 341, 349 [2001]).

Defendant's conviction of driving while impaired (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192[1]) was supported by legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis for disturbing the court's determinations concerning credibility (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). The credited police testimony showed that after his vehicle was stopped, defendant exhibited visible signs of impairment by alcohol, his eyes were bloodshot and watery, his breath had an odor of alcohol and he admitted that he had consumed alcohol (see People v Cruz, 48 NY2d 419, 426-428 [1979], appeal dismissed 446 US 901 [1980]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: November 22, 2019

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

People v. Whitehead (Joseph), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-whitehead-joseph-nyappterm-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack