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. Pedro MERCADO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Harold Silverman, J.), rendered March 12, 1997, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of 21/212 to 5 years, and order, same court and Justice, entered on or about February 20, 1998, denying defendant's CPL 440.20 motion, unanimously affirmed.
Defendant's suppression motion was properly denied. Assuming that the officer's single question was a common-law inquiry, we find that it was supported by the proper predicate (see, People v. Hollman, 79 N.Y.2d 181, 581 N.Y.S.2d 619, 590 N.E.2d 204). Internal Affairs officers were investigating an incident in which defendant had been seen passing a weapon to an off-duty officer, and approached defendant solely to question him as a witness. They were also aware of defendant's prior arrest for possession of a weapon. Although defendant agreed to accompany them to the precinct, he insisted that he and only the older of the two officers should walk down 12 flights of stairs instead of using the elevator from which defendant had just disembarked. The officer asked him if he was carrying anything, to which defendant responded that he had a gun. Under the circumstances, the officers had a founded suspicion that criminal activity was at hand, justifying the inquiry.
Defendant's bargained-for sentence, which is the statutory minimum for a second violent felony offender, was not unconstitutionally harsh or excessive as applied to this defendant (see, People v. Thompson, 83 N.Y.2d 477, 611 N.Y.S.2d 470, 633 N.E.2d 1074). We have reviewed defendant's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
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 30, 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)