Opinion
No. 2017-2086 N CR
12-22-2022
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Pernorris Taylor, Appellant.
Andrew E. MacAskill, for appellant. Nassau County District Attorney (Sarah S. Rabinowitz, Monica M.C. Leiter and Autumn S. Hughes of counsel), for respondent.
Unpublished Opinion
Andrew E. MacAskill, for appellant. Nassau County District Attorney (Sarah S. Rabinowitz, Monica M.C.
Leiter and Autumn S. Hughes of counsel), for respondent.
PRESENT:: JERRY GARGUILO, P.J., ELIZABETH H. EMERSON, TIMOTHY S. DRISCOLL, JJ
Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, First District (Joseph B. Girardi, J.), rendered September 27, 2017. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of driving while intoxicated (per se), and imposed sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial (Norman St. George, J.), in effect, without a hearing, of the branch of defendant's omnibus motion seeking to suppress physical evidence and statements that he had made to law enforcement officials. By decision and order of this Court dated April 16, 2020, the denial was vacated and the matter was remitted to the District Court for a determination, on the merits, following a hearing, of the branch of defendant's omnibus motion seeking to suppress physical evidence and statements that he had made to law enforcement officials, and for a report; the appeal was held in abeyance in the interim (see People v Taylor, 67 Misc.3d 130[A], 2020 NY Slip Op 50427[U]). The District Court of Nassau County (Joseph B. Girardi, J.) has now filed its report.
ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
Defendant was charged in five separate simplified traffic informations with, respectively, driving while intoxicated per se (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [2]), common-law driving while intoxicated (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [3]), failure to keep right (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1120 [a]), driving across hazard markings (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1128 [d]), and failing to signal (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1163 [a]).
Defendant moved to, among other things, suppress physical evidence and statements that he had made to law enforcement officials. When defendant failed to appear for a combined Huntley / Mapp / Dunaway hearing, the court held that defendant had waived his right to the pretrial hearing. The trial began the next day, and, during the People's case-in-chief, defendant changed his plea from not guilty to guilty, which resulted in a conviction and sentence on the charge of driving while intoxicated (per se).
In People v Taylor (67 Misc.3d 130[A], 2020 NY Slip Op 50427[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2020]), this court determined that the District Court erred in concluding that defendant's failure to appear in court constituted a forfeiture of his right to a hearing. As a result, the District Court's denial of the branch of defendant's motion seeking to suppress physical evidence and statements that he had made to law enforcement officers was vacated, and the matter was remitted to the District Court for a determination, on the merits, following a hearing, of that branch of defendant's motion; the appeal was held in abeyance in the interim. On remittitur, the District Court decided, after a hearing, that suppression of physical evidence and two of defendant's four statements was not warranted. On appeal, defendant contends only that physical evidence and those two statements should have been suppressed because there was no probable cause for the traffic stop.
"[A]s a general matter, the decision to stop an automobile is reasonable where the police have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred" (People v Robinson, 97 N.Y.2d 341, 348-349 [2001] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Failing to signal a turn, a violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1163 [a]), supports a vehicle stop (see People v Foster, 153 A.D.3d 853 [2017]). "The credibility determinations of a hearing court are entitled to great deference on appeal, and will not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record" (People v Martinez, 58 A.D.3d 870, 870-871 [2009]). Here, the record supports the hearing court's determination to credit the officer's testimony that he observed defendant make a right turn without signaling, which justified the stop of defendant's vehicle (see Foster, 153 A.D.3d 853). Indeed, even defendant confirmed the officer's testimony by testifying that he had made a turn without signaling. Consequently, the court properly denied suppression of physical evidence and two of defendant's four statements.
As we find no basis to warrant the granting of any further suppression, and since the two suppressed statements were similar to the two admissible statements, we find that there is no "reasonable possibility" that the District Court's failure to suppress those two statements prior to defendant pleading guilty "contributed to the plea" (People v Grant, 45 N.Y.2d 366, 379 [1978]; see People v Hightower, 207 A.D.3d 1199 [2022]; People v Hardman, 135 A.D.3d 785 [2016]; People v Hardy, 77 A.D.3d 133 [2010]).
Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
GARGUILO, P.J., EMERSON and DRISCOLL, JJ., concur.