JOHNSON, TYRIEK A., PEOPLE v ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •         SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
    Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
    844
    KA 15-00045
    PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., CENTRA, NEMOYER, TROUTMAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ.
    THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,
    V                              MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
    TYRIEK A. JOHNSON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
    THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (ALAN WILLIAMS OF
    COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
    JOSEPH V. CARDONE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ALBION (KATHERINE BOGAN OF
    COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
    Appeal from a judgment of the Orleans County Court (James P.
    Punch, J.), rendered September 29, 2014. The judgment convicted
    defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a
    controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a
    controlled substance in the fifth degree.
    It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal from the judgment insofar
    as it imposed sentence is unanimously dismissed and the judgment is
    affirmed.
    Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him
    upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of a controlled
    substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16 [1]) and criminal
    possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree (§ 220.06
    [5]). We reject defendant’s contention that County Court’s factual
    findings at the suppression hearing are against the weight of the
    evidence (see People v Wilmot, 204 AD2d 750, 751, lv denied 84 NY2d
    835; People v Wolf, 160 AD2d 1076, 1077-1078, lv denied 76 NY2d 868).
    Contrary to defendant’s further contention, the court properly
    determined that the police had reasonable suspicion to stop the
    vehicle driven by defendant. “Reasonable suspicion is the quantum of
    knowledge sufficient to induce an ordinarily prudent and cautious
    [person] under the circumstances to believe criminal activity is at
    hand” (People v Cantor, 36 NY2d 106, 112-113; see People v Mitchell,
    118 AD3d 1417, 1417, lv denied 24 NY3d 963). At the suppression
    hearing, a police officer with 23 years of experience in investigating
    narcotics identified the vehicle as the one used during an attempted
    controlled buy. He testified that he observed a hand-to-hand
    transaction between the driver of the vehicle and someone outside the
    vehicle, and he observed the vehicle make three quick stops in at
    least two drug-prone areas. We conclude under the totality of the
    circumstances that the police had reasonable suspicion to believe that
    -2-                           844
    KA 15-00045
    defendant had participated in a drug transaction (see People v
    Cespedes, 120 AD3d 585, 586, lv denied 24 NY3d 1082; People v Jones,
    63 AD3d 1582, 1582-1583, lv denied 13 NY3d 797; People v Soto, 28 AD3d
    264, 264, lv denied 7 NY3d 795; see generally People v Jones, 90 NY2d
    835, 837).
    We dismiss the appeal to the extent that defendant contends that
    the sentence is unduly harsh and severe inasmuch as defendant has
    completed serving his sentence and thus that part of the appeal is
    moot (see People v Mackey, 79 AD3d 1680, 1681, lv denied 16 NY3d 860;
    People v Bald, 34 AD3d 1362, 1362). We have examined defendant’s
    remaining contention and conclude that it is without merit.
    Entered:   October 7, 2016                     Frances E. Cafarell
    Clerk of the Court
    

Document Info

Docket Number: KA 15-00045

Filed Date: 10/7/2016

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/7/2016