Opinion
2012-02-28
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Martin CALDERON, Defendant–Appellant.
Richard M. Greenberg, Office of the Appellate Defender, New York (Rosemary Herbert of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Matthew T. Murphy of counsel), for respondent.
Richard M. Greenberg, Office of the Appellate Defender, New York (Rosemary Herbert of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Matthew T. Murphy of counsel), for respondent.
FRIEDMAN, J.P., SWEENY, RENWICK, DEGRASSE, ROMÁN, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Laura A. Ward, J.), rendered March 16, 2010, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony drug offender, to a term of 2 1/2 years, unanimously affirmed.
The court properly denied defendant's suppression motion. Defendant argues that the police lacked the necessary predicate for requesting permission to search the car in which he was riding. At the suppression hearing, defendant raised other issues relating to the driver's consent. However, he never alerted the court to the particular issue raised on appeal, and the court did not “expressly decide[ ]” (CPL 470.05[2] ) that issue ( see People v. Turriago, 90 N.Y.2d 77, 83–84, 659 N.Y.S.2d 183, 681 N.E.2d 350 [1997]; see also People v. Colon, 46 A.D.3d 260, 263, 847 N.Y.S.2d 44 [2007] ). Accordingly, we decline to review this claim in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that the police had, at least, a sufficient basis to ask the driver of the car for permission to search ( see People v. Brooks, 23 A.D.3d 847, 849, 804 N.Y.S.2d 140 [2005], lv. denied 6 N.Y.3d 810, 812 N.Y.S.2d 449, 845 N.E.2d 1280 [2006]; People v. Martin, 50 A.D.3d 1169, 854 N.Y.S.2d 789 [2008] ). Defendant complains that some of the People's arguments are raised for the first time on appeal. However, this is a consequence of the procedural posture of the case, in which defendant did not litigate the present issue. In any event, the People's arguments are supported by the hearing evidence.