Court Opinion

ID: 9899131
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-15 22:08:31.039085+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:23.097128
License: Public Domain

People v Beans (2023 NY Slip Op 51189(U))

[*1]

People v Beans (Lewanna)

2023 NY Slip Op 51189(U)

Decided on November 15, 2023

Appellate Term, First Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on November 15, 2023
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT

PRESENT: Hagler, P.J., Tisch, J.

570842/15

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, 
againstLewanna Beans, Defendant-Appellant.
Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Marc J. Whiten, J., at suppression hearing; Shawn T. Kelly, J., at plea and sentencing), rendered July 20, 2015, convicting her, upon her plea of guilty, of driving while intoxicated, and imposing sentence.
Per Curiam.
Judgment of conviction (Marc J. Whiten, J., at suppression hearing; Shawn T. Kelly, J., at plea and sentencing), rendered July 20, 2015, affirmed.
The suppression court, adopting the findings of fact and conclusions of law made by a judicial hearing officer, properly denied defendant's suppression motion. The police officer's observation of various traffic infractions provided probable cause for the stop of defendant's vehicle (see People v Hinshaw, 35 NY3d 427 [2020]). Defendant's contention that the arresting officer's testimony was patently tailored to meet constitutional objections is unpreserved for appellate review since she did not raise this argument at the suppression hearing (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v Turner, 203 AD3d 758, 759 [2022]). We decline to review this claim in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we reject it on the merits. Since we do not find the officer's testimony to be manifestly untrue, contrary to common experience, self-contradictory, or tailored, we decline to disturb the conclusion that the testimony was credible (see People v Garland, 155 AD3d 527, 529 [2017], affd 32 NY3d 1094 [2018], cert denied — US —, 140 S Ct 2525 [2020]). "[M]uch weight must be accorded the determination of the suppression court with its peculiar advantages of having seen and heard the witnesses" (People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]).  
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concur I concurDecision Date: November 15, 2023