Case Title: The People v. Marcelle E. Williams

Citation: 2011 NY Slip Op 06425

Docket Number: 

State: new-york

Court: New York Appellate Court

Date: 2011-09-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
=================================================================
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before
publication in the New York Reports.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
No. 220  SSM 29
The People &c.,
            Appellant,
        v.
Marcelle E. Williams,
            Respondent.
Submitted by Kelly Christine Wolford, for appellant.
Submitted by Drew R. Dubrin, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM:
The orders of the Appellate Division should be
affirmed.
The reasonableness of a seizure, the existence of
probable cause or reasonable suspicion, the classification of a
detention as an arrest and the attenuation of evidence from
- 1 -
- 2 -
SSM No. 29
police misconduct are all mixed questions of law and fact that
are beyond this Court's review unless there is no record support
for the determinations of the court below (see e.g. People v
Wheeler, 2 NY3d 370, 373 [2004]; People v Brannon, 16 NY3d 596,
602 [2011]; People v Gomcin, 8 NY3d 899, 901 [2007]; People v
Farrell, 59 NY2d 686, 686 [1983]; People v Divine, 6 NY3d 790,
791 [2006]).  Here, although different conclusions may not have
been unreasonable, the record supports the Appellate Division's
determination that defendant was arrested without probable cause
(see People v Ryan, 12 NY3d 28, 30-31 [2009]; cf. People v Hicks,
68 NY2d 234, 240 [1986]) and that the seizure of evidence from
him was neither attenuated from the illegal arrest nor derived
from a source that was sufficiently independent of it.  Since it
is reasonably possible that the introduction of the impermissibly
seized evidence affected the verdict, defendant is entitled to
vacatur of the conviction and a new trial (see e.g. People v
Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 237 [1975]).  An unrelated conviction must
be overturned as well because it was premised on a guilty plea
for which defendant was promised a sentence that would run
concurrently with the punishment imposed in this case (see People
v Fuggazzatto, 62 NY2d 862, 863 [1984]).
*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules,
orders affirmed, in a memorandum.  Chief Judge Lippman and Judges
Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.
Decided September 13, 2011
- 2 -