People v. Wilder

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Wilder

186 A.D.2d 1069, 590 N.Y.S.2d 809, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11724

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

DecidedOctober 7, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 186 A.D.2d 1069 (People v. Wilder) 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. Wilder, 186 A.D.2d 1069, 590 N.Y.S.2d 809, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11724 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject defendant’s contention that his plea was involuntarily entered. The issue of defendant’s intoxication during the commission of the robbery became apparent from the testimony at the suppression hearing. During the plea colloquy, the court inquired of defense counsel, an experienced Public Defender, whether he had discussed all possible defenses with defendant, and he stated that he had discussed the case thoroughly with defendant, especially after the suppression hearing. Under the circumstances of this case, the court’s failure to inquire further into the possible defense of intoxication does not require vacatur of the plea, particularly in the absence of any suggestion that defendant was unaware of the possible defense of intoxication.

Further, we conclude that there was probable cause for defendant’s arrest. While proof provided by the evidence of tracking by a bloodhound alone would not be sufficient to support a conviction, it was sufficient, together with the other evidence, to establish probable cause to believe that defendant committed the robbery (see, People v Price, 54 NY2d 557; People v Muggelberg, 132 AD2d 988, lv denied 70 NY2d 958).

Finally, we reject defendant’s argument that the police procedures in exhibiting photo arrays to the victims were impermissibly suggestive. (Appeal from Judgment of Wayne County Court, Strobridge, J. — Robbery, 3rd Degree.) Present— Boomer, J. P., Pine, Lawton, Fallon and Doerr, JJ.

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

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject defendant’s contention that his plea was involuntarily entered. The issue of defendant’s intoxication during the commission of the robbery became apparent from the testimony at the suppression hearing. During the plea colloquy, the court inquired of defense counsel, an experienced Public Defender, whether he had discussed all possible defenses with defendant, and he stated that he had discussed the case thoroughly with defendant, especially after the suppression hearing. Under the circumstances of this case, the court’s failure to inquire further into the possible defense of intoxication does not require vacatur of the plea, particularly in the absence of any suggestion that defendant was unaware of the possible defense of intoxication.

Further, we conclude that there was probable cause for defendant’s arrest. While proof provided by the evidence of tracking by a bloodhound alone would not be sufficient to support a conviction, it was sufficient, together with the other evidence, to establish probable cause to believe that defendant committed the robbery (see, People v Price, 54 NY2d 557; People v Muggelberg, 132 AD2d 988, lv denied 70 NY2d 958).

Finally, we reject defendant’s argument that the police procedures in exhibiting photo arrays to the victims were impermissibly suggestive. (Appeal from Judgment of Wayne County Court, Strobridge, J. — Robbery, 3rd Degree.) Present— Boomer, J. P., Pine, Lawton, Fallon and Doerr, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

186 A.D.2d 1069, 590 N.Y.S.2d 809, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11724, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-wilder-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack