Judges: Weiss
Filed Date: 11/27/1991
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/31/2024
Appeals (1) from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County (Keegan, J.), rendered November 29, 1989, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and (2) by permission, from an order of said court, entered June 6, 1990, which denied defendant’s motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate the judgment of conviction, without a hearing.
On August 22, 1988 the Albany City Police Department received information that Johnny Alexander, the subject of a recent complaint and an outstanding arrest warrant, was expected to arrive at the Albany Trailways bus terminal that night on the 11:00 p.m. bus from New York City. Alexander’s wife described him as 5 feet 8 or 9 inches tall, weighing 165 pounds, with black hair and brown eyes. The warrant was confirmed by a teletype message which indicated that Alexander was 6 feet tall.
Two police officers went to the bus station and observed the passengers who disembarked from the 11:00 p.m. bus from New York City. They approached defendant, who fit the general description of Alexander, and asked for identification. In the process of retrieving his wallet from his traveling bag, a clear plastic baggie containing three marihuana cigarettes was exposed in plain view of one of the officers. When told he was being arrested for marihuana possession, defendant fled the terminal and abandoned his travel bag. A search of the bag revealed approximately six ounces of cocaine. Defendant was apprehended, tried and convicted.
Defendant next contends that the denial of his CPL 440.10 motion to vacate the judgment of conviction should be reversed in the interest of justice. He argues that he should not be charged with defense counsel’s failure to challenge the prosecutor’s use of peremptory challenges to eliminate black jurors or to challenge the basis of the police information which led to their approach and inquiries (see, People v Landy, supra, at 375). We disagree. It was well within the discretion of County Court to deny the motion since there was no record of the voir dire and the other assertions were only conclusory allegations (see, CPL 440.10 [3] [a]). The failure of defendant to raise these issues at trial deprived the People of an opportunity to fairly present proof and make a record subject to review. We conclude that it would be inappropriate to exercise our discretion and review the issues on this barren record.
Mahoney, P. J., Yesawich Jr., Levine and Mercure, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment and order are affirmed.