Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Charles THOMAS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Felice Shea, J.), rendered May 9, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the third degree (two counts), and attempted robbery in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to consecutive terms of 3 to 6 years on each robbery conviction, to be served concurrently with a term of 2 to 4 years on the attempted robbery conviction, unanimously affirmed.
Defendant's suppression motion was properly denied. The report of a non-uniformed individual, who identified himself as a security officer at a nearby bank, that defendant had just robbed the bank, provided reasonable suspicion that defendant had committed a felony and permitted forcible detention of defendant through the use of handcuffs (see, People v. Allen, 73 N.Y.2d 378, 540 N.Y.S.2d 971, 538 N.E.2d 323; People v. Hammonds, 215 A.D.2d 166, 626 N.Y.S.2d 155, lv. denied 86 N.Y.2d 795, 632 N.Y.S.2d 508, 656 N.E.2d 607; People v. Norman, 199 A.D.2d 5, 604 N.Y.S.2d 104, lv. denied 83 N.Y.2d 808, 611 N.Y.S.2d 144, 633 N.E.2d 499). Although the security officer's basis of knowledge was not recited prior to the handcuffing, the details of the robbery given only moments after defendant was handcuffed provided probable cause for defendant's arrest (see, People v. Elwell, 50 N.Y.2d 231, 234, 428 N.Y.S.2d 655, 406 N.E.2d 471).
The record fails to support defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. An examination of the entire record reveals that the reason for counsel's failure to present a psychiatric defense was defendant's opposition to such a defense (see, People v. Petrovich, 87 N.Y.2d 961, 641 N.Y.S.2d 592, 664 N.E.2d 503).
The court properly denied defendant's alternative applications for a mistrial or for permission to reopen the defense case following the prosecutor's summation since the prosecutor's comment did not present any argument contrary to the court's prior ruling in connection with recent fabrication, but rather constituted fair comment on the evidence (People v. Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396, 446 N.Y.S.2d 9, 430 N.E.2d 885).
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: February 19, 1998
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)