Case Title: The People v. Donald France

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: new-york

Court: New York Appellate Court

Date: 2009-04-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
- 1 -
=================================================================
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before
publication in the New York Reports.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
No. 106  SSM 6
The People &c.,                 
            Respondent, 
        v.                  
Donald France,                  
            Appellant.
Submitted by Kristina Schwarz, for appellant.
Submitted by Susan Axelrod, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM:
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
Under CPL 710.60 (1), a defendant is entitled to a
hearing on a suppression motion only if there is an issue of fact
that must be resolved before it can be determined whether
suppression is required.   Here, evaluating (1) the face of the
- 2 -
 No. 106 SSM 6
- 2 -
pleadings, (2) the context of the motion, and (3) the defendant's
access to information (see People v Mendoza, 82 NY2d 415, 426
[1993]; see also People v Lopez, 5 NY3d 753, 754 [2005]), the
motion was properly denied without a hearing.  Despite having
sufficient information from the felony complaint and the
voluntary disclosure form concerning the factual predicate for
his arrest, defendant failed to dispute that the victim told the
police that he had been robbed by defendant, that the victim
identified him to the police and that defendant admitted
possessing a pawnshop receipt for the stolen goods (cf. People v
Bryant, 8 NY3d 530 [2007]).  These uncontested facts provide
support for the Appellate Division's conclusion that there was
probable cause for the arrest, and thus the Appellate Division
correctly concluded that a hearing was unnecessary.
*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   * 
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules,
order affirmed, in a memorandum.  Chief Judge Lippman and Judges
Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.
Decided April 2, 2009