People v Copeland

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

People v Copeland 2017 NY Slip Op 33030(U) November 29, 2017 County Court, Westchester County Docket Number: 17-0561-01-02-03-04-05 Judge: Helen M. Blackwood 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: STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER ---------------------------------------------------------------){ THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK DECISION and ORDER -against- Indictment No.: 17-0561-01-02-03-04-05 .r::=[) F ii' , ERIC LEE A/K/A "BUB BA'" . . ' SINCERE SMITH; ALLEN COPELAND A/K/Al "HAT"; •'i;'li...~ r·~ . i I~ ib._," ·1·1 1 ~ '" : · ,( :'."'.{' .. :. l;1o~~I ~ • d/! \.' ~Rl( 1 : ,/ 1~·\ · "~ ·· (i~ \ 1\~:s~-r ! ~~~STER LEROY GARCIA; JOHN OQUENDO, · Defendants --------------------------·------------------------------------){ Defendant, ALLEN COPELAND, A/KIA/ "HAT", has been indicted for aiding, abetting,· and acting in concert with his co-defendants for the crimes of murder in the second degree (PL § 125.25[3]), attempted robbery in the first'degree (PL§ 110/160.15[2]), criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (PL §265.03[1][b]) (eight counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (PL §265.03[3]) (eight counts), attempted robbery in the first degree (PL §H0/160.15[4]), attempted robbery in the second degree (PL §110/160.10[1]), robbery in the first degree (PL § 160.15[4]) (six counts), robbery in the second degree (PL§ 160.10[1]) (six counts); robbery in the second degree (PL §160.10[2.][a]) (two counts), assault in the second ·degree (PL §120.05[2]), robbery in the first degree (PL §160.15[1]), robbery in the first degree [* 2] (PL §160.15[2]), criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree (PL§ 165.40), . unlawful imprisonment in the first degree (PL §135.10), and conspiracy in the fourth degree (PL § 105.1 O[l ]). The defendant has filed a notice of motion, along with a supporting affirmation seeking omnibus relief. The People have responded by filing an affirmation in opposition and a memorandum oflaw. Upon consideration of the aforementioned submissions, along with a review of the grand jury minutes and exhibits and the consent discovery order entered in this case, the motion is disposed of as follows: I. Motion to Inspect and Dismiss ./ The People have provided the grand jury minutes to the court and the court has reviewed those minutes in camera. After doing so, the court finds that there is no basis to dismiss any charges of the indictment. Accordingly, the defendant's motion to do so is denied in all respects. The court finds that the evidence offered to the grand jury was legally sufficient in accordance with section 70. l 0 of the Criminal Procedure Law. '"Legally sufficient evidence means competent evidence, which, if accepted as true, would establish every element of an offense charged and the deferadant's cofumission thereof," (CPL §70.10[1]): Moreover; "[c]ourts assessing the sufficiency of the evidence before a grahd jury must evaluate 'whether the. evidence, viewed most favorably to the People, if unexplained and uncontradicted-and deferring all questions as to the weighter quality of the-evidence-would warrant conviction,'" (People v. Mills. 1N.Y.3d269, 274-275, 804 N.E.2d 392 [2003], quoting People v. Carroll. 93 N.Y.2d · 564, 568, 715 N.E.2d 500 [1999]; see also, People v. Wisey, 133 A.D.3d 799, 21N.Y.S.3d111 [2015]). The court finds that the evidence presented to the grand jury, in its entirety, met this burden. [* 3] Additionally, the court finds that the grand jury was properly instructed as the law (see, People v. Calbud, 49 N.Y.2d 398, 402 N.E.2d 1140 [1980]) and that a quorum was present. Finally, the court does 11ot find that the release of the grandjury minutes or any portion. thereof to the defendant is necessary, nor has the defendant set forth any compelling or particularized need for the production of the grand jury minutes. Therefore, the defendant's application forthe release of said minutes is denied (see, CPL §190.25[4][a]). IL Motion for Severance The defendant moves for a severance from his co-defendants. The defendant and his codefendants, who are alleged to have acted in concert, are proper1y joined in the same indictment (see, CPL §200.40 [1]). Where the proof against all defendants is supplied by the same evidence, "only the most cogent reasons warrant a severance," {see, People v. Bornholdt, 33 NY2d 75, 87, 305 N.E.2d 461, cert. denied 416 US 95; see also, People v. Watts, 159 AD2d 740, 553 N.Y.S.2d 213 [1990]). Further, public policy strongly "favorsjoinder, because it expedites the judicial process, reduces court congestion, and avoids the necessity of recalling witnesses," (People v. Mahboubian, 74 NY2d ~ 74, 183, 544 N.Y.S.769 [1989]). Nevertheless, for good cause shown, such as the fact that a defendant wiU be "unduly prejudiced by a joint triaJi', a defendant may be entitled to a severance from his co~defendant (see, CPL §200.40 [1]). In order to fairly evaluate whether the defendant will or will not be unduly prejudiced before a joint trial occurs, decisions must be rendered regarding the.· admissibility of any statement by the defendant's co-defendants as well as, if admissible, whether any such statement can be redacted. Further, consideration must be given as to whether the co-defendants intend to· testify and whether the co-defendants' defenses are antagonistic to [* 4] that of the within defendant. Accordingly, as the court has yet to reach and resolve the above addressed matters, the defendant's motion for a severance is denied as premature with leave rtorenew and for the defendant to· demonstrate, after the above matters have been resolved, that a joint trial will result in unfair prejudice to him and substantially impair his defense. III. Motion to Suppress Physical Evidence The defendant moves to suppress all physical evidence recovered from his person at the time of the arrest, arguing that such property was seized in violation of his constitutional rights and that the police had no probable cause to arrest him. The People argue that the defendant's motion should be :denied because the police had probable cause to. arrest the defendant and search him incident to that arrest. With respect to any property recovered on the defendant's person or immediate vicinity thereof at the time of his arrest, his motion is granted to the extent that a hearing will be held to determine whether the police seized the defendi:Ult in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights (see, Dunaway V. New York, 442 U.S. 200, 99 S.Ct. 2248 [1979]) and whether the search and seizure of the defendant's property was lawful (see, Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684 [1961]). IV. Motion to Suppress Statements The defendant moves to suppress his noticed statements on the grounds that they were obtained in violation of his constitutional rights and involuntru:ily made under coercive circumstances. The People argue that the defendant's motion should be denied after a hearing because the People will be able to establish that the defendant's statements were voluntarily made.. [* 5] The defendant's motion is granted to the extent that a Huntley hearing shall be !held prior to trial to determine whether the statements allegedly made by the defendant, which have been noticed by the People pursuant to CPL §710.30(1)(a), were made involuntarily within the meaning of CPL §60.45 (see, CPL §710.20[3];CPL §710.60[3][b]; People v. Weaver, 49 N.Y.2d 1012 [1980]). V. Motion to Suppress'1dentification The defendant moves to suppress the numerous pre-trial identifications of the defendant that have been noticed by the People, arguing that each of the identification procedures were suggestive in nature and conducive to obtaining mistaken identifications. The People consent to a Wade hearing to determine their admissibility, contending that all of the identifications fall into one of the following three categories: (1) confirmatory in nature; (2) lay opinions from people familiar with the .defendant who identified him after viewing . video surveillance; or (3) not unduly suggestive. The defendant's motion is granted to the extent that a hearing shall be held prior to trial to determine whether the noticed identification procedures were conducted in an unduly suggestive manner so as to taint any subsequent in-court identification (see, United States v. Wade, 388U.S.218, 87 S.Ot. 1926 [1967]). :Should the hearing court determine that the identification procedures were so suggestive, then the court shall hold a hearing to determine whether or not there was an independent basis for the witness' in-court identification (see, People v. Perkins, 28 N.Y.3d 432, 68 N.E.3d 679 [2016]). VI. Motion to Suppress Prior Bad Acts The defendant requests a hearing to ,determine whether the prosecution should be [* 6] '"... permitted to use any criminal convictions, or bad acts of the defendant at trial. The defendanf s motion is granted to the extentthat prior to jury selection, the People are ordered to disclose o · the defendant all specific instances of his prior uncharged crimes and bad acts. they expect to introduce at trial for impeachment purposes in accordance with CPL §240.43. In response, the defendant must sustain his bmden of showing the prior convictions and bad acts which will unduly prejudice him as a witness on his own behalf (People v. Matthews, 68 N.Y.2d 118, 497 N.E.2d 287 [1986]). In the event that the People seek to use any such conduct in their direct case against the defendant, they are ordered to request ahearing to determine the admissibility of such evidenc.e pursuant to People v. Ventimiglia, 52 N.Y.2d 350, 420 N.E.2d 59 (1981). VII. Motion for Discovery and Disclosure and for Bill of Particulars The consent discovery order entered in this case indicates that the parties have agreed to enumerated discovery, disclosure, and inspection in accordance with Article 240 of the Criminal Procedure Law. The defendant's motion for discovery is granted to the extent that the People are ordered to provide him with any material specified in CPL §240.20 that has not already been provided. With respect to the defendant's demand for exculpatory information, the People acknowledge their continuing obligations pursuant to Brady V. Maryland, (373 U.S. 83, _83 S.Ct. 1194 [1963]) and Giglio v. United States (406 U.S. 150, 92 S.Ct. 763 [1972]). If a question exists as to the potentially exculpatory nature of a particular item, or if the Peop1e are not willing to consent to an item's disclosure, the People are ordered to provide such item)to the court forthwith for an'in camera inspection and determination. [* 7] As to the defendant's request for material enumerated in CPL §§240.44 and 240.45, such motion is denied at this time: ~he People recognize their duty to cotpply with Peop1e v. Rosario (9 N.Y.2d 286, 213 N.Y.S.2d 448 [1961]) and are hereby ordered to do so in accordance with the time-frame set forth in the statute. Any requests made by the defendant with respect to the discovery of items beyond the scope of Article 240 of the Criminal Procedure Law are denied (see, Pirro v. Lacava, 230 A.D.2d 909, 646 N.Y.S.2d 866 [1996]; Matter of Catterson v. Rohl, 202 A.D.2d,_ 608 N.Y.S.2d 696 [1994]). The defendant's motion for a further Bill of Particulars is denied, as the Bill of Particulars that has been provided by the People in the consent discovery order adequately informs the defendant of the substance of all alleged conduct and complies with CPL §200.95 in all respects. VIII. Motion for Leave to File Additional Motions The motion is denied. Should the defendant bring further motions for omnibus relief, he must do so by order to show cause setting forth the reasons why his motion was not and could not be brought in accordance with CPL §255.2D. The foregoing constitutes the opinion, decision, and order of this court. Dated: White Plains, New York NovemberJ1, 2017 HON. HELEN M. BLACKWOOD Westchester Comity Court To: ANTHONY A. SCARPINO, JR. District Attorney of Westchester County . 11 l Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd.

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.