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, etc., respondent, v. George QUINONES, appellant.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ingram, J.), rendered May 11, 2005, convicting him of burglary in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of the defendant's omnibus motion to suppress physical evidence and statements made to law enforcement officials.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The hearing court properly denied the defendant's motion to suppress physical evidence and statements made to law enforcement officials because the police lawfully stopped and detained the defendant. The police had a founded suspicion that criminal activity was afoot when they observed the defendant, who matched the general description of a robbery suspect in a radio call, in the stairwell of the building where the reported robbery occurred (see People v. Hollman, 79 N.Y.2d 181, 184–185, 581 N.Y.S.2d 619, 590 N.E.2d 204; People v. De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d 210, 223, 386 N.Y.S.2d 375, 352 N.E.2d 562). The defendant's attempted flight, combined with the temporal proximity between the reported robbery and the officers' arrival on the scene, gave the police reasonable suspicion to detain the defendant (see People v. Woods, 98 N.Y.2d 627, 745 N.Y.S.2d 749, 772 N.E.2d 1107; People v. Wilson, 5 A.D.3d 408, 773 N.Y.S.2d 95; People v. Sergeant, 281 A.D.2d 438, 721 N.Y.S.2d 399; People v. Blunt, 276 A.D.2d 495, 713 N.Y.S.2d 562).
The defendant's contention that the search of his duffel bag without a warrant constituted an unreasonable search and seizure, was not raised at the suppression hearing, and thus, it is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ) and, in any event, is without merit (see People v. Brown, 36 A.D.3d 931, 828 N.Y.S.2d 550).
Finally, the defendant's contention that his sentencing as a persistent felony offender violated his constitutional rights pursuant to Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 is without merit (see People v. Rivera, 5 N.Y.3d 61, 800 N.Y.S.2d 51, 833 N.E.2d 194, cert. denied 546 U.S. 984, 126 S.Ct. 564, 163 L.Ed.2d 473; People v. Rosen, 96 N.Y.2d 329, 728 N.Y.S.2d 407, 752 N.E.2d 844, cert. denied 534 U.S. 899, 122 S.Ct. 224, 151 L.Ed.2d 160; People v. Hargroves, 27 A.D.3d 765, 815 N.Y.S.2d 605).
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.
Docket No: 2005-05109, 2584 /04
Decided: November 27, 2007
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)