People v. Yoneyama

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Yoneyama

128 A.D.3d 616, 11 N.Y.S.3d 14

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

DecidedMay 28, 2015

Docket15255 4378/11

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 128 A.D.3d 616 (People v. Yoneyama) 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. Yoneyama, 128 A.D.3d 616, 11 N.Y.S.3d 14 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. McLaughlin, J.), rendered August 21, 2012, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of eight years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. There is no basis for disturbing the court’s credibility determinations. The totality of the circumstances established that defendant voluntarily consented to the search of his bedroom (see People v Gonzalez, 39 NY2d 122 [1976]).

Defendant, who had prior contacts with the criminal justice system, provided his consent to search both orally and in writing, and he acknowledged that he had been notified of his right to refuse consent (see People v Brunson, 73 AD3d 432 [1st Dept 2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 772 [2010]). Although a large number of officers were present when defendant’s car was stopped on the highway, and although defendant was initially handcuffed, the officers did not all remain with defendant throughout the encounter, and the handcuffs were removed at the time defendant consented to the search. Furthermore, defendant was very cooperative with the police, not merely in terms of lack of resistance, but in candidly disclosing the presence of drugs in his car and apartment (see People v Quagliata, 53 AD3d 670 [2d Dept 2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 834 [2008]; see also People v Mercado, 120 AD3d 441 [1st Dept 2014], affd 25 NY3d 936 [2015]).

Defendant’s consent was not invalidated by an investigator’s advice to defendant that if he did not consent to the search, the police could get a warrant, and that the circumstances of the execution of the warrant could lead to the arrest of defendant’s father, who also lived in the apartment. The investigator had valid legal aiid factual grounds for making these statements, which were not threats to arrest defendant’s father, but warn *617 ings of a possible, less favorable alternative scenario (see People v LaDuke, 206 AD2d 859, 860 [4th Dept 1994]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Andrias, J.P., Moskowitz, DeGrasse, Gische and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. McLaughlin, J.), rendered August 21, 2012, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of eight years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. There is no basis for disturbing the court’s credibility determinations. The totality of the circumstances established that defendant voluntarily consented to the search of his bedroom (see People v Gonzalez, 39 NY2d 122 [1976]).

Defendant, who had prior contacts with the criminal justice system, provided his consent to search both orally and in writing, and he acknowledged that he had been notified of his right to refuse consent (see People v Brunson, 73 AD3d 432 [1st Dept 2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 772 [2010]). Although a large number of officers were present when defendant’s car was stopped on the highway, and although defendant was initially handcuffed, the officers did not all remain with defendant throughout the encounter, and the handcuffs were removed at the time defendant consented to the search. Furthermore, defendant was very cooperative with the police, not merely in terms of lack of resistance, but in candidly disclosing the presence of drugs in his car and apartment (see People v Quagliata, 53 AD3d 670 [2d Dept 2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 834 [2008]; see also People v Mercado, 120 AD3d 441 [1st Dept 2014], affd 25 NY3d 936 [2015]).

Defendant’s consent was not invalidated by an investigator’s advice to defendant that if he did not consent to the search, the police could get a warrant, and that the circumstances of the execution of the warrant could lead to the arrest of defendant’s father, who also lived in the apartment. The investigator had valid legal aiid factual grounds for making these statements, which were not threats to arrest defendant’s father, but warn *617 ings of a possible, less favorable alternative scenario (see People v LaDuke, 206 AD2d 859, 860 [4th Dept 1994]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Andrias, J.P., Moskowitz, DeGrasse, Gische and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 A.D.3d 616, 11 N.Y.S.3d 14, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-yoneyama-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack