From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Kindell

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Mar 9, 2017
148 A.D.3d 456 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)

Opinion

03-09-2017

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Eugene KINDELL, Defendant–Appellant.

Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Elizabeth Mosher and Susan Axelrod of counsel), for Appellant. Eugene Kindell, appellant pro se. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Manu K. Balachandran and Susan Axelrod of counsel), for Respondent.


Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Elizabeth Mosher and Susan Axelrod of counsel), for Appellant.

Eugene Kindell, appellant pro se.

Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Manu K. Balachandran and Susan Axelrod of counsel), for Respondent.

FRIEDMAN, J.P., ACOSTA, RENWICK, ANDRIAS, MOSKOWITZ, JJ.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel P. Conviser, J. at original and reopened suppression hearings; Rena K. Uviller, J. at jury trial and sentencing), rendered December 19, 2011, convicting defendant of burglary in the second degree, attempted burglary in the second degree and bail jumping in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to an aggregate term of 19 ½ years to life, unanimously affirmed.

This Court previously held this appeal in abeyance pending a reopened suppression hearing (135 A.D.3d 423, 23 N.Y.S.3d 65 [1st Dept.2016] ). Upon remand, the court conducted the reopened hearing and again denied defendant's suppression motion. The record supports that determination. There is no basis for disturbing the court's credibility determinations. The evidence credited by the hearing court establishes that the search and seizure was lawful under the plain view doctrine. The record fails to support defendant's assertion that delay resulting from the original ineffective representation (see id. ) prejudiced his ability to litigate the reopened proceedings.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. We have considered and rejected the other claims raised, but not addressed, on the original appeal, including those contained in defendant's pro se supplemental brief.


Summaries of

People v. Kindell

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Mar 9, 2017
148 A.D.3d 456 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
Case details for

People v. Kindell

Case Details

Full title:The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Eugene KINDELL…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Mar 9, 2017

Citations

148 A.D.3d 456 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
148 A.D.3d 456
2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 1780

Citing Cases

Kindell v. Capra

The Appellate Division considered, and rejected, Petitioner's sufficiency of the evidence claim on direct…

Kindell v. Capra

Petitioner alleges that on December 19, 2011, he was convicted in the New York Supreme Court, New York…