Opinion
11472 Ind. 4206/16
05-07-2020
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Vladimir JEAN, Defendant–Appellant.
Janet E. Sabel, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Harold V. Ferguson, Jr., of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (David P. Stromes of counsel), for respondent.
Janet E. Sabel, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Harold V. Ferguson, Jr., of counsel), for appellant.
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (David P. Stromes of counsel), for respondent.
Acosta, P.J., Renwick, Richter, Gonza´lez, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Laura A. Ward, J. at suppression hearing; Daniel P. Conviser, J. at jury trial and sentencing), rendered September 26, 2017, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and driving while intoxicated, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of six years, unanimously affirmed.
The hearing court properly denied defendant's suppression motion. There is no basis for disturbing the court's credibility determinations, including its finding that an officer testified credibly about his observation, after an undisputedly lawful stop of defendant's car, of a firearm in plain view. There was no basis to suppress defendant's statement, even though it was made while defendant was in custody and had not yet received Miranda warnings. Defendant's inquiry about why the police were arresting his passenger was "immediately met by a brief and relatively innocuous answer by the police officer," not constituting interrogation or its functional equivalent ( People v. Rivers, 56 N.Y.2d 476, 480, 453 N.Y.S.2d 156, 438 N.E.2d 862 [1982] ; compare People v. Lanahan, 55 N.Y.2d 711, 447 N.Y.S.2d 139, 431 N.E.2d 624 [1981] [detailed recital of evidence held equivalent to interrogation] ).
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.