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. James MACISAAC, appellant.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Peter M. Forman, J.), rendered February 21, 2019, convicting him of assault in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress his statements to law enforcement officials.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The County Court properly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress his statements to law enforcement officials. Contrary to the defendant's contention, the record supports the court's determination that the defendant was not arrested inside of his home. The evidence presented at the suppression hearing established that the defendant's warrantless arrest was effectuated after the defendant voluntarily crossed the threshold of his doorway into the apartment building's common entryway as he was being interviewed by a state trooper. Consequently, the court properly determined that the arrest of the defendant was not in violation of (Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 63 L.Ed.2d 639; see People v. Garvin, 30 N.Y.3d 174, 180, 66 N.Y.S.3d 161, 88 N.E.3d 319; People v. Sancho–Hernandez, 106 A.D.3d 841, 965 N.Y.S.2d 526; cf. People v. Riffas, 120 A.D.3d 1438, 994 N.Y.S.2d 136). In addition, the state troopers had probable cause to arrest the defendant (see People v. Sahadeo, 140 A.D.3d 1093, 1093, 34 N.Y.S.3d 139; People v. Read, 74 A.D.3d 1245, 1245, 904 N.Y.S.2d 147). Moreover, the People met their burden of establishing beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's post-Miranda statements to law enforcement officials were voluntarily made after the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his Miranda rights (see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694; People v. Burgos, 198 A.D.3d 672, 673, 156 N.Y.S.3d 213; People v. Rivas, 175 A.D.2d 186, 187, 572 N.Y.S.2d 336).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit (see People v. Dyson, 221 A.D.2d 1004, 1004, 635 N.Y.S.2d 372).
IANNACCI, J.P., MILLER, CHRISTOPHER and WARHIT, JJ., concur.
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: 2019–03235
Decided: March 22, 2023
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)