From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Mason

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
May 2, 2003
305 A.D.2d 979 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Summary

holding that defendants "waive contention" that the trial court "erred in failing to conduct a pretrial [suppression] hearing" where, as here, a defendant "consented to the concurrent suppression hearing and bench trial conducted by the court."

Summary of this case from Brown v. Lee

Opinion

KA 01-02214

May 2, 2003.

Appeal from a judgment of Monroe County Court (Smith, J.), entered October 23, 1995, convicting defendant after a nonjury trial of robbery in the second degree.

EDWARD J. NOWAK, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (BRIAN SHIFFRIN OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

HOWARD R. RELIN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (STEPHEN X. O'BRIEN OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.

PRESENT: GREEN, J.P., PINE, HURLBUTT, AND LAWTON, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum:

On appeal from a judgment convicting him following a bench trial of robbery in the second degree (Penal Law 160.10), defendant contends that County Court erred in failing to conduct a pretrial hearing on his suppression motion and to render a pretrial decision on that motion ( see CPL 710.40). Defendant consented to the concurrent suppression hearing and bench trial conducted by the court ( see People v. Restrepo, 295 A.D.2d 627, 628, lv denied 98 N.Y.2d 732; People v. Montalvo, 263 A.D.2d 461, 462, lv denied 94 N.Y.2d 826; People v. Hanson, 256 A.D.2d 74, lv denied 93 N.Y.2d 874; see also People v. Yousef, 236 A.D.2d 868, lv denied 90 N.Y.2d 860, 866) and thus waived that contention. Defendant further contends that reversal is required because the court failed to render a decision on defendant's suppression motion before returning its verdict. Although the court should have explicitly ruled on the suppression motion, the court's failure to rule constitutes an implicit denial of the suppression motion ( see People v. Jackson, 291 A.D.2d 930, lv denied 98 N.Y.2d 677; People v. Virgil, 269 A.D.2d 850, lv denied 95 N.Y.2d 806; see also People v. Bailey, 58 N.Y.2d 272, 275).


Summaries of

People v. Mason

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
May 2, 2003
305 A.D.2d 979 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

holding that defendants "waive contention" that the trial court "erred in failing to conduct a pretrial [suppression] hearing" where, as here, a defendant "consented to the concurrent suppression hearing and bench trial conducted by the court."

Summary of this case from Brown v. Lee

In Mason and Yousef, the People did not object to the use of the joint hearing/trial and the respective defendants, who had consented to the procedure, contended on appeal that the court had erred in utilizing it.

Summary of this case from In re Michael C. Green
Case details for

People v. Mason

Case Details

Full title:PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. AARON MASON…

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

Date published: May 2, 2003

Citations

305 A.D.2d 979 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
758 N.Y.S.2d 566

Citing Cases

The People v. Winnie Nixon

Consequently, we agree with defendant that "`[t]he essence or core of the defenses [were] in conflict, such…

People v. Hare

Defendant never objected to the joinder of the suppression hearing with the nonjury trial in a single…