From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Smith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 24, 1997
244 A.D.2d 583 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

November 24, 1997

Appeal from the County Court, Orange County (Byrne, J.).


Ordered that the judgments are modified, on the law, by directing that the sentences imposed under Indictment No. 93-00529 shall run concurrently with the sentences imposed under Indictment No. 93-00598; as so modified, the judgments are affirmed.

The court properly denied suppression of physical evidence. This defendant raises essentially the same challenge to the stop of the vehicle in which he was arrested as was raised by his codefendant Kevin Vorhees. As this Court stated in People v. Vorhees ( 229 A.D.2d 553, 554), "[t]he conduct of the occupants of the vehicle was not the direct result of any unlawful police activity, but was the result of an independent act ( see, People v Boodle, 47 N.Y.2d 398, cert denied 444 U.S. 969; People v. Townes, 41 N.Y.2d 97). As the [New York State] Troopers approached, one of the occupants of the vehicle reached for a shotgun, turned and pointed the muzzle of the shotgun at one of the Troopers, and yelled `go, go, go' to the [co]defendant, who was the driver. This conduct established probable cause for the arrest of the occupants of the vehicle ( see, People v. De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d 210). Therefore, any possible taint of the prior police conduct was dissipated ( see, People v. Mercado, 229 A.D.2d 550 * * *)".

Additionally, the defendant's contention that the trial court erred by failing to impose sanctions against the People for the People's failure to maintain certain Rosario material ( People v Rosario, 9 N.Y.2d 286; CPL 240.45 [a]) is without merit. The defendant failed to demonstrate that he suffered any prejudice, and was, therefore, not entitled to a sanction against the prosecution ( see, People v. Martinez, 71 N.Y.2d 937; People v. Mitchell, 212 A.D.2d 737; People v. Grice, 203 A.D.2d 587).

However, the sentences under the two indictments must run concurrently ( see, Penal Law § 70.25). The record supports the conclusion that all of the convictions under Indictment No. 93-00529 arose from the same act for which the convictions under Indictment No. 93-00598 also arose.

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.

Copertino, J. P., Sullivan, Pizzuto and Lerner, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Smith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 24, 1997
244 A.D.2d 583 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

People v. Smith

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. STEVEN SMITH, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Nov 24, 1997

Citations

244 A.D.2d 583 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
665 N.Y.S.2d 675

Citing Cases

Smith v. Goord

Before: Mercure, J.P., Spain, Rose Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. In 1994, petitioner was convicted of…

People v. Perez

ORDERED that the judgment is modified, on the law, by providing that the term of imprisonment imposed on the…