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. Andy ENCARNACION, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (George Daniels, J. at Huntley hearing; Bruce Allen, J. at jury trial and sentence), rendered June 19, 2000, convicting defendant of robbery in the first degree, kidnapping in the second degree, criminal use of a firearm in the first degree, robbery in the second degree (two counts) and endangering the welfare of a child, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to concurrent terms of 12 years, 12 years, 12 years, 5 years, 5 years and time served, unanimously affirmed.
Defendant's suppression motion was properly denied. The arresting officer's questioning of defendant, without Miranda warnings, about the location of a firearm was proper given the presence in the apartment of a concealed weapon and a young child, which posed a substantial threat to a number of people. Thus, the questions were necessary to secure the safety of the officers and the innocent bystanders (see, New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649, 104 S.Ct. 2626, 81 L.Ed.2d 550; People v. Oquendo, 252 A.D.2d 312, 685 N.Y.S.2d 437, lv. denied 93 N.Y.2d 901, 689 N.Y.S.2d 713, 711 N.E.2d 989). The record clearly establishes that the situation was volatile and dangerous at the time of the officer's inquiry.
Defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find that the crime of kidnapping in the second degree provided a proper predicate crime for defendant's conviction of criminal use of a firearm in the first degree (People v. Dinsio, 286 A.D.2d 517, 729 N.Y.S.2d 208, 211), and that the merger doctrine does not require vacatur of the kidnapping conviction since the restraint of the victim and the underlying crime were discrete acts (see, People v. Sanchez, 287 A.D.2d 295, 731 N.Y.S.2d 358).
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: January 10, 2002
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)