From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Gadsden

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jun 29, 2000
273 A.D.2d 701 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

June 29, 2000.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County (Giardino, J.), rendered January 12, 1999, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree.

Before: Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Spain, Carpinello and Rose, JJ.

Marcel J. Lajoy, Schenectady, for appellant.

Robert M. Carney, District Attorney (Alfred D. Chapleau of counsel), Schenectady, for respondent.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER


After departing a bus on March 17, 1998, defendant was stopped by police at a bus station in the City of Schenectady, Schenectady County, and found to be in possession of crack cocaine. He was charged with the crimes of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree. Thereafter, defendant made an omnibus motion seeking to have County Court,inter alia, conduct a Dunaway/Mapp hearing for the purpose of suppressing certain evidence. County Court (Eidens, J.) summarily denied the request and defendant was subsequently convicted after trial of the crimes charged. He was sentenced to concurrent prison terms of 5 to 15 years on each count and now appeals.

We affirm. Initially, we find no error in County Court's failure to conduct a Dunaway/Mapp hearing under the circumstances presented herein. CPL 710.60 (3) (b) provides that a court may summarily deny a suppression motion, without a hearing, if "[t]he sworn allegations of fact do not as a matter of law support the ground alleged". "Hearings are not automatic or generally available for the asking by boilerplate allegations" (People v. Mendoza, 82 N.Y.2d 415, 422). Rather, "[a] hearing is required where `the papers submitted raise a factual dispute on a material point which must be resolved before the court can decide the legal issue'" (People v. Bailey, 218 A.D.2d 569, 571, quoting People v. Gruden, 42 N.Y.2d 214, 215).

Defendant's motion papers are devoid of factual information supporting his claim that the evidence obtained by the police must be suppressed because the initial stop was illegal. In his affidavit in support of the motion, defendant's attorney stated, in conclusory fashion, that:

The initial pretext for the stop of * * * defendant at the Schenectady Bus Station was without any legal basis. Police had no right to stop and inquire of * * * defendant. Any claimed consent to search was involuntarily given.

Similarly, defendant merely averred that "[p]olice officers detained and questioned me for no justifiable basis [and] I did not voluntarily or knowingly consent to any search". Notably absent from defendant's papers is any reference to the circumstances under which the allegedly illegal stop and detention occurred. Consequently, we do not find that County Court's summary denial of that aspect of defendant's omnibus motion seeking a Dunaway/Mapp hearing constituted an improvident exercise of discretion (see, People v. Huntley, 259 A.D.2d 843, lv denied 93 N.Y.2d 972; People v. Wright, 256 A.D.2d 643, lv denied 93 N.Y.2d 880).

Likewise, we do not find that the sentence was either harsh or excessive. County Court imposed a legal sentence that was less than the maximum authorized by statute (see, Penal Law § 70.00 [b], [c]; [3] [b]). In light of this as well as the seriousness of the crimes, we do not find that County Court abused its discretion in sentencing defendant (see, People v. Randolph, 240 A.D.2d 856, lv denied 91 N.Y.2d 878; People v. Kitchings, 239 A.D.2d 665, lv denied 90 N.Y.2d 860; People v. Molina, 149 A.D.2d 813). Furthermore, insofar as the sentence was within statutory limits, we reject defendant's claim that it violates the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment (see, People v. Jones, 39 N.Y.2d 694, 697).

Mercure, Spain, Carpinello and Rose, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.


Summaries of

People v. Gadsden

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jun 29, 2000
273 A.D.2d 701 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

People v. Gadsden

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. AZIM GADSDEN, Appellant

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

Date published: Jun 29, 2000

Citations

273 A.D.2d 701 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
711 N.Y.S.2d 788

Citing Cases

People v. Davis

The People did, however, submit the material to County Court for an in camera review. Upon conducting such…

People v. Vanness

Here, defendant made his motion after he was supplied with the search warrant application, supporting…