PEOPLE v. BARFIELD

Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Bobby BARFIELD, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

Decided: September 30, 2005

PRESENT:  PIGOTT, JR., P.J., GREEN, GORSKI, SMITH, AND LAWTON, JJ. Frank H. HiscockLegal Aid Society, Syracuse (Philip Rothschild of Counsel), for Defendant-Appellant. William J. Fitzpatrick, District Attorney, Syracuse (Victoria M. White of Counsel), for Plaintiff-Respondent.

 Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15[3] ).   By failing to move to withdraw his plea of guilty or to vacate the judgment of conviction, defendant failed to preserve for our review his challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution (see People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5;  People v. Scott, 15 A.D.3d 883, 788 N.Y.S.2d 798, lv. denied 4 N.Y.3d 856, 797 N.Y.S.2d 430, 830 N.E.2d 329).   In any event, we note that Supreme Court's duty to make further inquiry is not triggered solely by the failure of defendant to recite every element of the crime to which he pleaded guilty (see Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d at 666, n. 2, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5;  Scott, 15 A.D.3d at 884, 788 N.Y.S.2d 798).   We reject the further contention of defendant that he was unlawfully arrested in his home in violation of Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 63 L.Ed.2d 639, and that the court therefore should have suppressed his statements to the police as the fruits of that unlawful arrest.   The police officers had obtained a search warrant for defendant's home and, “[s]ince the requirements for a search warrant were satisfied, there was no constitutional infirmity in the failure of the police to also secure an arrest warrant” (People v. Lee, 205 A.D.2d 708, 709, 613 N.Y.S.2d 675, lv. denied 84 N.Y.2d 828, 617 N.Y.S.2d 148, 641 N.E.2d 169;  see People v. Battista, 197 A.D.2d 486, 487, 602 N.Y.S.2d 865, lv. denied 83 N.Y.2d 869, 613 N.Y.S.2d 129, 635 N.E.2d 298;  People v. Tondryk, 176 A.D.2d 1194, 576 N.Y.S.2d 691, lv. denied 79 N.Y.2d 833, 580 N.Y.S.2d 213, 588 N.E.2d 111).   Also contrary to the contention of defendant, the suppression court did not err in crediting the testimony of the police officers over that of defendant and codefendant (see generally People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761, 395 N.Y.S.2d 635, 363 N.E.2d 1380;  People v. Muldrow, 273 A.D.2d 814, 815, 711 N.Y.S.2d 649, lv. denied 95 N.Y.2d 891, 715 N.Y.S.2d 384, 738 N.E.2d 788;  People v. Becker, 154 A.D.2d 927, 545 N.Y.S.2d 874, lv. denied 75 N.Y.2d 767, 551 N.Y.S.2d 909, 551 N.E.2d 110).   We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: