From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Doyle

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Dec 13, 2011
90 A.D.3d 780 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)

Opinion

2011-12-13

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Blair DOYLE, appellant.

Leon H. Tracy, Jericho, N.Y., for appellant. Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Laurie K. Gibbons of counsel; Justin Zaroovabeli on the brief), for respondent.


Leon H. Tracy, Jericho, N.Y., for appellant. Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Laurie K. Gibbons of counsel; Justin Zaroovabeli on the brief), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Ayres, J.), rendered July 15, 2010, convicting him of grand larceny in the third degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing pursuant to a stipulation in lieu of motions, of suppression of his statements to law enforcement officials.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The testimony adduced at the suppression hearing established that the police had probable cause to arrest the defendant upon receiving information from a codefendant that was sufficiently reliable as a statement against penal interest, based upon the codefendant's personal involvement with the crime ( see People v. White, 73 A.D.3d 820, 820–821, 900 N.Y.S.2d 407; People v. Jackson, 65 A.D.3d 1164, 1165, 885 N.Y.S.2d 213).

The defendant's contention regarding his challenge to the trial court's Sandoval ruling ( see People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 357 N.Y.S.2d 849, 314 N.E.2d 413) is without merit ( see People v. Seymour, 77 A.D.3d 976, 978–979, 910 N.Y.S.2d 487; People v. Hamlin, 153 A.D.2d 644, 645, 544 N.Y.S.2d 859).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence ( see CPL 470.15[5]; People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902).

The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).

FLORIO, J.P., BALKIN, BELEN and CHAMBERS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Doyle

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Dec 13, 2011
90 A.D.3d 780 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
Case details for

People v. Doyle

Case Details

Full title:The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Blair DOYLE, appellant.

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

Date published: Dec 13, 2011

Citations

90 A.D.3d 780 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 9148
934 N.Y.S.2d 316

Citing Cases

People v. Campos

People v Berzups, 49 NY2d 417 (1980), rearg. den. 73 NY2d 866 (1989); People v. Perel, 34 NY2d 462, 466…

People v. Campos

den . 73 N.Y.2d 866, 537 N.Y.S.2d 486, 534 N.E.2d 324 (1989) ; People v. Perel, 34 N.Y.2d 462, 466, 358…