Opinion
2019–03235 Ind. No. 80/18
03-22-2023
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. James MACISAAC, appellant.
Thomas N.N. Angell, Poughkeepsie, NY (Jennifer Burton of counsel), for appellant. William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, NY (Kirsten A. Rappleyea of counsel), for respondent.
Thomas N.N. Angell, Poughkeepsie, NY (Jennifer Burton of counsel), for appellant.
William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, NY (Kirsten A. Rappleyea of counsel), for respondent.
ANGELA G. IANNACCI, J.P., ROBERT J. MILLER, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, BARRY E. WARHIT, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Peter M. Forman, J.), rendered February 21, 2019, convicting him of assault in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress his statements to law enforcement officials.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The County Court properly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress his statements to law enforcement officials. Contrary to the defendant's contention, the record supports the court's determination that the defendant was not arrested inside of his home. The evidence presented at the suppression hearing established that the defendant's warrantless arrest was effectuated after the defendant voluntarily crossed the threshold of his doorway into the apartment building's common entryway as he was being interviewed by a state trooper. Consequently, the court properly determined that the arrest of the defendant was not in violation of ( Payton v. New York , 445 U.S. 573, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 ; see
People v. Garvin, 30 N.Y.3d 174, 180, 66 N.Y.S.3d 161, 88 N.E.3d 319 ; People v. Sancho–Hernandez, 106 A.D.3d 841, 965 N.Y.S.2d 526 ; cf. People v. Riffas, 120 A.D.3d 1438, 994 N.Y.S.2d 136 ). In addition, the state troopers had probable cause to arrest the defendant (see People v. Sahadeo, 140 A.D.3d 1093, 1093, 34 N.Y.S.3d 139 ; People v. Read, 74 A.D.3d 1245, 1245, 904 N.Y.S.2d 147 ). Moreover, the People met their burden of establishing beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's post- Miranda statements to law enforcement officials were voluntarily made after the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his Miranda rights (see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 ; People v. Burgos, 198 A.D.3d 672, 673, 156 N.Y.S.3d 213 ; People v. Rivas, 175 A.D.2d 186, 187, 572 N.Y.S.2d 336 ).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675 ).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit (see People v. Dyson, 221 A.D.2d 1004, 1004, 635 N.Y.S.2d 372 ).
IANNACCI, J.P., MILLER, CHRISTOPHER and WARHIT, JJ., concur.