 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
OPINION
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
APPELLANT MEMORANDUM DEFENDANT INWOOD STREET DRUG SALES NY2D RESPONDENT CONTENDS WARRANT AFFIDAVIT SUPPORTING NARCOTICS BROTHER INTERSECTION BAG RETRIEVING JUDGE UNSUCCESSFUL DEPRIVE DEFENDANT MEANINGFUL REPRESENTATION JACKSON BALDI CHIEF JUDGE KAYE JUDGES SIMONS TITONE HANCOCK BELLACOSA SMITH LEVINE CONCUR |
THE PEOPLE &C., RESPONDENT, v. RAHEIME PINCHBACK, APPELLANT.
82 N.Y.2d 857, 631 N.E.2d 100, 609 N.Y.S.2d 158 (1993).
December 15, 1993
2 No. 249 (1993 NY Int. 248)
Decided December 15, 1993
_________________________________________________________________
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before
publication in the New York Reports.
Jonathan Garelick, for Appellant.
Linda Cantoni, for Respondent.
MEMORANDUM:
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
Defendant contends that probable cause for the issuance of a warrant
to search his home was lacking because the affidavit supporting the
warrant application failed to establish a nexus between his home,
located at 130-12 Inwood Street in Queens, and the alleged criminal
narcotics activity on a nearby streetcorner. The affiant asserted that
he observed defendant's brother entering the home after engaging in
apparent drug sales at the intersection adjacent to his home and,
after leaving the home, possessing a clear plastic bag from which he
repeatedly retrieved small plastic baggies for apparent narcotics
transactions. Additionally, the affidavit avers that defendant's
brother returned to that address after receiving money from others
engaged in apparent and confirmed drug sales at the intersection, and
that another suspected dealer was seen retrieving a bag of drugs from
a car parked in the private driveway at 130-12 Inwood Street for
apparent sales on the same corner. Contrary to defendant's
contentions, the record contains "information to support a reasonable
belief that * * * evidence of a crime may be found" at the targeted
location, and thus supports the finding of probable cause below
(People v Bigelow, 66 NY2d 417, 423; see also CPL §§ 690.10(4),
690.40(2)).
Defendant also argues that he was denied effective assistance of
counsel by his attorney's failure to object to the admission of
previously suppressed statements. A review of the record and the
circumstances of the case leads us to conclude that defense counsel's
omission, adequately explained on the record as trial strategy --
albeit unsuccessful -- did not deprive defendant of meaningful
SNIPPETS:
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
