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. DANA M. HOLLEY, DEFENDANT–APPELLANT.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: On appeal 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[1][b]; [3] ), and one count of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (§ 265.02[1] ), defendant contends that County Court erred in refusing to suppress his statements and certain evidence seized from his person when he was stopped and searched by a Rochester police officer. Specifically, defendant contends that the officer's testimony at the suppression hearing was incredible, and, thus, the court's determination that the officer had reasonable suspicion to believe that he had committed a crime is not supported by the evidence. We reject defendant's contention.
The officer testified at the suppression hearing that she heard shots fired, then observed defendant fire a handgun at a moving vehicle. She stopped defendant and recovered a semi-automatic handgun from his pocket. It is well settled that a hearing “court's credibility determination is entitled to great deference” (People v. Coleman, 57 AD3d 1519, 1520, lv denied 12 NY3d 782; see generally People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761), and we conclude that “[t]he police officer's testimony at the suppression hearing does not have all appearances of having been patently tailored to nullify constitutional objections ․, and was not so inherently incredible or improbable as to warrant disturbing the ․ court's determination of credibility” (People v. Walters, 52 AD3d 1273, 1274, lv denied 11 NY3d 795 [internal quotation marks omitted] ). We therefore see no basis in the record for disturbing the court's finding that the officer had reasonable suspicion to stop and search defendant, or its ultimate suppression ruling.
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 11–00967
Decided: March 27, 2015
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
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)