From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Munoz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 20, 2001
286 A.D.2d 448 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

(Ind. No. 1192/98)

Submitted June 25, 2001.

August 20, 2001.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Carroll, J.), rendered October 19, 1998, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, criminal mischief in the fourth degree, and criminal possession of burglar's tools, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of those branches of the defendant's omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence and statements to law enforcement authorities.

Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Sonia Mikolic-Torreira of counsel), for appellant.

Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Jodi L. Mandel of counsel), for respondent.

Before: FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P. SONDRA MILLER, NANCY E. SMITH, STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.


ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The evidence presented by the People at the suppression hearing established that the police had probable cause to arrest the defendant. A police officer responding to a telephone call received over the 911 emergency number was advised by the two 13-year-old witnesses that burglars had just left the building. The witnesses pointed to the defendant, who was still visible about a block away from the building which had been burglarized, and described him as wearing a brown jacket. Within minutes, the police stopped the defendant, and, in a showup identification, the witnesses confirmed that he was one of the burglars. Under the circumstances, the police properly concluded that a crime had been committed and that the defendant was one of the perpetrators (see, CPL 140.10; People v. Ortiz, 229 A.D.2d 451, 452).

The defendant's sentence, which was to be served consecutively with the sentence imposed on a prior conviction, was appropriate, since the sentences were based on separate successive acts (see, People v. Walsh, 44 N.Y.2d 631). Moreover, the sentence was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).


Summaries of

People v. Munoz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 20, 2001
286 A.D.2d 448 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

People v. Munoz

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, ETC., RESPONDENT, v. JOSE FERNANDEZ MUNOZ, A/K/A JOSE FERNANDO…

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

Date published: Aug 20, 2001

Citations

286 A.D.2d 448 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
729 N.Y.S.2d 501

Citing Cases

People v. Jackson

As to the complainant's report to the partner of where the perpetrator could be found, since she was an…