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. TYSHAWN BUSH, DEFENDANT–APPELLANT.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03[3] ). We reject defendant's contention that the suppression court (DiTullio, J.) erred in refusing to suppress the weapons seized from the vehicle he was driving and the statements he made to police officers following his arrest. The credibility determinations of the suppression court “are entitled to great deference on appeal and will not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record” (People v. Spann, 82 AD3d 1013, 1014 [internal quotation marks omitted] ). Contrary to defendant's contention, the testimony of two of the police officers that they observed defendant drinking from a Budweiser beer bottle as he drove the vehicle is not incredible as a matter of law (see People v. Villanueva, 137 A.D.2d 852, 853, lv denied 71 N.Y.2d 1034). Nor is the arresting officer's testimony that he observed a revolver in plain view inside the vehicle “unbelievable as a matter of law, manifestly untrue, physically impossible, contrary to experience, or self-contradictory” (People v. James, 19 AD3d 617, 618, lv denied 5 NY3d 829). The suppression court was entitled to credit the testimony of the officers (see People v. Gandy, 85 AD3d 1595, 1596, lv denied 17 NY3d 859) and, on the basis of that testimony, properly concluded that the People met their burden of establishing “the legality of the police conduct in the first instance” (People v. Berrios, 28 N.Y.2d 361, 367; see Spann, 82 AD3d at 1014).
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court
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.
Docket No: KA 11–01414
Decided: June 14, 2013
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth 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)