From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Dong Shin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 19, 1993
192 A.D.2d 684 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Opinion

April 19, 1993

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (O'Dwyer, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).

There is no merit to the defendant's contention that the court should have suppressed physical evidence seized from his car. Where the police observed the defendant's vehicle speed away from an intersection and begin to drag race with another vehicle, the stop of the defendant's vehicle was valid (see, People v Ellis, 62 N.Y.2d 393). Once the officer observed bullets in the back seat of the car, he had probable cause to believe a gun was inside the car, and thus the search of the passenger compartment and the glove compartment was proper (see, People v Davis, 182 A.D.2d 770).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

We find the sentence imposed by the trial court to be fully supported by the record (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Mangano, P.J., Bracken, Sullivan and Lawrence, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Dong Shin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 19, 1993
192 A.D.2d 684 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
Case details for

People v. Dong Shin

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. DONG SHIN, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Apr 19, 1993

Citations

192 A.D.2d 684 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
597 N.Y.S.2d 99

Citing Cases

People v. Rose

The People also posit that the presence of a concealed carry permit is the equivalent of the presence of…

People v. Ford

The Supreme Court correctly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress…