BROWN, DERYL, PEOPLE v ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •            SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
    Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
    335
    KA 08-01689
    PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.
    THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,
    V                              MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
    DERYL BROWN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
    (APPEAL NO. 1.)
    TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (KIMBERLY F. DUGUAY OF
    COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
    MICHAEL C. GREEN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (NANCY A. GILLIGAN OF
    COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
    Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (John R.
    Schwartz, A.J.), rendered June 16, 2008. The judgment convicted
    defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon
    in the second degree.
    It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is
    unanimously affirmed.
    Memorandum: In appeal No. 1, defendant appeals from a judgment
    convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of a
    weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03 [3]) and, in appeal
    No. 2, he appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of
    guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (§
    265.02 [1]). Defendant contends in each appeal that County Court
    erred in refusing to suppress physical evidence based on its
    determination following a Darden hearing with respect to the
    confidential informant relied upon by the police. We reject that
    contention (see generally People v Edwards, 95 NY2d 486, 493-494;
    People v Darden, 34 NY2d 177, 181-182, rearg denied 34 NY2d 995). We
    have reviewed the sealed transcript of the Darden hearing, as well as
    the court’s requisite “summary report as to the existence of the
    informer and with respect to the communications made by the informer
    to the police to which the police testify” made available to defendant
    and the People (Darden, 34 NY2d at 181). Based on those documents, we
    conclude that the court properly determined that the confidential
    informant existed and that he provided the information to the police
    concerning defendant’s possession of the handgun at the location where
    defendant was stopped by the police and subsequently arrested.
    Entered:    March 16, 2012                         Frances E. Cafarell
    Clerk of the Court
    

Document Info

Docket Number: KA 08-01689

Filed Date: 3/16/2012

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/8/2016