People v. Persen

Summary

The Appellate Division, Third Department, reviewed Cecilio Persen's convictions for criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and menacing in the second degree. The court held that his arrest for disorderly conduct was invalid and that the knife should have been suppressed, but found the error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in light of the extensive evidence of possession. The court also found ineffective assistance of counsel at the suppression hearing and reduced the weapon-possession sentence to time served, affirming the judgment as modified.

Holdings

1. The convictions for criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and menacing in the second degree were supported by the weight of the evidence.
2. The arrest for disorderly conduct was invalid because the evidence did not establish reasonable cause to believe that defendant intended to cause public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm, or recklessly created a risk thereof; the knife discovered during the search incident to that arrest therefore should have been suppressed.
3. Defense counsel provided ineffective assistance at the suppression hearing, and that deficient representation contributed to County Court's failure to suppress the knife.
4. The erroneous admission of the physical knife was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and did not require a new trial.
5. The sentence for criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree was harsh and excessive and was reduced to time served in the interest of justice.

Questions Presented

1. Whether defendant's convictions were supported by legally sufficient evidence and the weight of the evidence.
2. Whether defendant's arrest for disorderly conduct was supported by reasonable cause and whether the knife found during the search incident to that arrest should have been suppressed.
3. Whether defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel at the suppression hearing.
4. Whether the erroneous admission of the knife required a new trial or was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
5. Whether defendant's challenge to the Sandoval ruling was preserved for appellate review.
6. Whether defendant's sentence was harsh and excessive.

Disposition

affirmed