People v Cendari Maddox
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
People v Cendari Maddox 2018 NY Slip Op 33752(U) December 5, 2018 County Court, Westchester County Docket Number: Ind. No. 17-1094 Judge: Larry J. Schwartz Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] COUNTY COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER , ------------------------------------------------------------------)( THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE Of!lt~'£5K, >tr -against- Di:t; 1 0 2018 DECISION & ORDER ) TIMOTHY C. IDONI COUNTY CLERK CENDARI MADDO)(, COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER Indict. No. 17-1094 Defendants. ~------.;.·--------------------:---.:.'.;; SCHWARTZ, J., ___ _. _______ "'.·-------------------)( ' \ By Westchester County Indictment Number 17-1094, the defendant is charged with criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. On September 6, 2018, September 27, 2018 and November 14, 2018, a - Mapp/Dunaway/Huntley hearing was conducted before this Court at which "the People ·called Yonkers Police Detectives Daniel Medina and Robert Santobello. The defendant was identified in court. Received into evidence at the above hearing we're the People's Exhibits 10-12 and 16-19. Also received into evidence were the Defendant's Exhibits A-D. The Court sua sponte receives Defendant's Exhibit E into evidence. No witnesses testified for the defendant. At a Mapp/Dunaway hearing, the People have the burden of going forward to show the legality of police conduct which lead to the seizure of evidence and/or the obtaining of statements from the defendant. In seeking to challenge the propriety of the same conduct, the defendant bears the burden to show by a fair preponderance of the credible evidence that the police conduct was illegal (see Mapp v Ohio, 367 US 643 [1961]; Dunaway v New York, 422 US 1053 [1979]). At a Huntley hearing, the People have the burden· of showing whether any statements allegedly made by the defendant, which have been noticed pursuant to CPL 710.30 (1 )(a), were voluntarily made by the defendant within the meaning of CPL 60.45 (see CPL 710.20 (3); CPL 710.60[3][b]; People v Weaver, 49 NY2d 1012 (1980]) and/or obtained in accord with defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel. A spontaneous, volunteered statement is one made without any external prompting as opposed to one that is elicited directly or indirectly or otherwise induced by police action. If the statement is truly spontaneous, meaning self-generated, the statement will be admissible even though the defendant was in custody, and 1 [* 2] ' l ·· unwarned or improperly warned (People v Dunn, 195 AD2d 240 [2d Dept 1994]). I I find the testimony offered by the People's witnesses to be plausible, candid, ·and fully credible. I make the following findings of fact: FINDINGS OF FACT On September 12, 2017, Detectives Medina and Santobello, assigned then to the Yonkers Police Department Gang Unit, gathered at approximately 5:35 a.m. at Ashburn Ave and Vineyard St. in Yonkers with members of the Yonkers Police Emergency Service Unit and Westchester District Attorney Investigators. They were preparing to execute a search warrant at 8 Stewart Place, Second Floor Apartment, in Yonkers to search that dwelling and the person of Kashawn Reid pursuant to the warrant. Det. Medina and others moved into position in the front of the dwelling. Det. Santobello and others positioned themselves in the backyard. At 6:01 or 6:02 A.M. ESU yelled "Yonkers Police, search warrant" and began forcible entry into the subject apartment. Det. Santobello then heard a noise coming from a second-floor window. He looked up and saw an air conditioning unit in the window and saw that someone was removing the side panel of the unit. Seconds afterwards, a handgun came out that window (pictured in People's Ex. 18). Det. Santobello radioed to advise a gun had come out a second-floor window. Det. Medina remained outside in the front of the dwelling while ESU breached and, along with other officers, detained the occupants of the apa~ment as they were being let out by ESU. Five occupants came out in total, one of whom was Kashawn Reid. The detective heard the transmission from Det. Santobello that a gun had come out of the window from a second-floor window. The defendant was the first occupant Det. Medina. saw coming out of the subject apartment. Det. Medina escorted the defendant against a wall, and gave him a quick pat down and placed him into handcuffs for officer safety. The defendant then asked Det. Medina what was going on. Det. Medina advised the defendant they were executing a search warrant and a gun came out of a window. Defendant, unprompted, said in sum and substance, "I'm going to take that, that was mine. You can let my family go." To confirm the defendant was in fact referring to the gun that had been thrown out the window, and not a potential second gun, the officer asked the defendant to describe the gun. He stated the firearm was silver with a brown handle (together, the "First Noticed Statements"). Thereafter, the defendant was arrested and transported to the police station to be interviewed. The interview was conducted by Det. Medina and Santobello. Det. Medina first stated "We're going to talk about what happened today and then I'm going to take a statement from you. Ok?" After confirming the defendant's pedigree 2 [* 3] I information, he displayed a Miranda waiver card to 'the defendant and stated "Ok, Cendari, these are your rights. I'd like you to read them, if you understand them, please sign indicating that you understand your rights." -- Det. Medina then placed the card down in front of the defendant and handed him a'pen to sign. The defendant read the card, sighed it, then handed the card back to the detective. The defendant then stated, without being asked a question, "I really don't know anything .what you guys are saying, I'll 1write a statement saying that it's mine so you can let my brother go ... ". This oral st~tement by the defendant and his subsequent statements were recorded electronically ("Second Noticed Statement"). I He also signed a written statement typed by Detective Me_dina ("Third Noticed 1 Statement'). In sum and substance, the defendant admitted he was the one who threw the gun thrown out the window and that it belonged to him. 1·find the testimony offered by the People's witnesses to be plausible, candid, and fully credible. Pursuant to these findirigs of fact, I make the following conclusions of law: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW A. CustodyNoluntariness of Statements That though the defenda'nt was in custody, the First Noticed Statements are admissible as a spontaneous, volunteered statements not elicited directly or indirectly by police action (see People v Dunn). To the extent these statements could be perceived as having been elicited by the officer, they would still be admissible as statements that fall under the public safety'exception of the Miranda n..1le (see People v Williams, 191AD2d 526 [2d Dept 1993]). I find that the Second and Thi~d Noticed Statements were the product of custodial interrogation. Pursuant to the standarq set forth by the Court of Appeals in People v Yuki, the court has considered (1) the amount of time spent with the police, (2) whether the subject's freedom of action was restricted, (3) the location and atmosphere of the questioning, (4) the degree of cooperation exhibited, (5) whether constitutional warnings were given, and (6) whether questioning was investigatory or accusatory in nature. As the defendant was in custody at the time ·of these noticed statements, the People were required to show beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant made them after a voluntary, knowing and intelligent waiver of his privilege against selfincrimination and his right to have counsel present during an interrogation (see People v Rosa, 65 NY2d 380 [1985]). Here, since the defendant signed the Miranda warning card after being asked to read it and sign it if he understood it, I find that the defendant made a voluntary, 3 [* 4] ' IA. / knowing and intelligent waiver of his privilege against self-incrimination and right to counsel. (see People v Simo, 76 NY2d 967 [1990]). That this waiver was a voluntary, knowing and intelligent one is further supported by the evidence that the defendant has been arrested on 13 prior occasions (see People v Davis, 55 NY2d 731, 733 [1981]). There were no threats, coercion, pressure or tricks used to compel his waiver (see id.). Accordingly, the People will be permitted to use all the noticed statements on their direct case at trial. B. Probable Cause for Arrest That once the police detained the defendant and he made the first noticed statement taking ownership of the gun thrown out the window, the police had probable cause to arrest the defendant. Accordingly, the noticed statements were not the product of an unlawful arrest and will not be suppressed on such a basis. C. Abandoned Property/Search Warrant That the gun recovered is admissible as abandoned property (see People it Wright, 58 NY2d 797 [1983]). To the extent the defendant argues, the search warrant was executed prematurely, before 6:00 A.M., I find that the police properly commenced execution of the search warrant at 6:01 or 6:02 A.M. Accordingly, the motion to suppress the tangible evidence recovered is denied .. \ The foregoing constitutes the opinion, decision and order of the Court. Dated: White Plains, New York December 5, 2018 Hon. Larry J. Schwartz Westchester County Court Judge To: HON. ANTHONY A. SCARPINO, JR. District Attorney, Westchester County' 111 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd. White Plains, New York 10601 4 ) [* 5] J_,.. ' r ':.9 BASHIAN & FARBER, LLC 235 Main Street White Plains, NY 10601 5
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
