People v. ValePeople v. Vale
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Lester B. Adler, J.), rendered August 8, 2013, convicting him of burglary in the first degree (two counts), robbery in the first degree, attempted robbery in the first degree, attempted robbery in the second degree, criminal use of a firearm in the first degree, grand larceny in the third degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, 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 statement to law enforcement officials.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that his postarrest statement to law enforcement officials should have been suppressed on the ground that he was lured into leaving his residence to enable the police to arrest him without an arrest warrant, in violation of Payton v New York (445 US 573). This contention is without merit. The police may use noncoercive means to lure a defendant outside his or her home to enable them to effect an arrest without a warrant (see People v Amador, 11 AD3d 473, 474; People v Robinson, 8 AD3d 131, 132; People v Williams, 222 AD2d 721, 721; People v Roe, 136 AD2d 140, 143, affd 73 NY2d 1004). Under the circumstances, the police conduct in this case was not coercive (see People v Samuel, 92 AD3d 466, 466; People v Manolis, 43 AD3d 830, 830).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant‘s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon our independent review pursuant to
The defendant‘s contention that certain historical cell site location information and call detail records should have been suppressed is unpreserved for appellate review (see
The defendant‘s challenges, raised in his main brief and his pro se supplemental brief,
The defendant‘s contention, raised in his main brief and his pro se supplemental brief, that he was deprived of his constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel is based, in part, on matter appearing on the record and, in part, on matter outside the record, and thus, constitutes a “mixed claim” of ineffective assistance (People v Maxwell, 89 AD3d 1108, 1109; see People v Evans, 16 NY3d 571, 575 n 2). Since the defendant‘s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel cannot be resolved without reference to matter outside the record, a
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).
The remaining contentions raised by the defendant in his pro se supplemental brief are without merit.
DILLON, J.P., COHEN, BARROS and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Aprilanne Agostino
Clerk of the Court