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. Linda WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (John Cataldo, J.), rendered November 20, 2006, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing her to a term of 4 1/212 years, unanimously affirmed.
The court properly denied defendant's suppression motion. The People established probable cause for defendant's arrest, notwithstanding the absence of testimony from the officers who initially detained defendant, given the testimony of the officer who placed defendant under arrest immediately thereafter. The only reasonable conclusion that could be drawn from the totality of the hearing evidence is that defendant was detained based on radio transmissions describing the suspects (see People v. Gonzalez, 91 N.Y.2d 909, 910, 669 N.Y.S.2d 526, 692 N.E.2d 557 [1998] ). There is no merit to defendant's suggestion that the type of circumstantial inferences drawn in Gonzalez should be limited to “buy and bust” cases (see e.g. People v. Colon, 39 A.D.3d 233, 833 N.Y.S.2d 434 [2007], lv. denied 9 N.Y.3d 874, 842 N.Y.S.2d 786, 874 N.E.2d 753 [2007]; People v. Dingle, 30 A.D.3d 1121, 1122, 818 N.Y.S.2d 2 [2006], lv. denied 7 N.Y.3d 925, 827 N.Y.S.2d 693, 860 N.E.2d 995 [2006]; People v. Myers, 28 A.D.3d 373, 813 N.Y.S.2d 423 [2006], lv. denied 7 N.Y.3d 760, 819 N.Y.S.2d 885, 853 N.E.2d 256 [2006] ).
The imposition of mandatory surcharges and fees by way of court documents, but without mention in the court's oral pronouncement of sentence, was lawful (see People v. Harris, 51 A.D.3d 523, 857 N.Y.S.2d 562 [2008] ).
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: June 03, 2008
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)