Opinion
246 KA 11-00967
03-27-2015
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Dana M. HOLLEY, Defendant–Appellant.
Timothy P. Donaher, Public Defender, Rochester (James Eckert of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Stephen X. O'Brien of Counsel), for Respondent.
Timothy P. Donaher, Public Defender, Rochester (James Eckert of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant.
Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Stephen X. O'Brien of Counsel), for Respondent.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CARNI, SCONIERS, and VALENTINO, JJ.
Opinion MEMORANDUM:On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03[1][b] ; [3] ), and one count of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (§ 265.02[1] ), defendant contends that County Court erred in refusing to suppress his statements and certain evidence seized from his person when he was stopped and searched by a Rochester police officer. Specifically, defendant contends that the officer's testimony at the suppression hearing was incredible, and, thus, the court's determination that the officer had reasonable suspicion to believe that he had committed a crime is not supported by the evidence. We reject defendant's contention.
The officer testified at the suppression hearing that she heard shots fired, then observed defendant fire a handgun at a moving vehicle. She stopped defendant and recovered a semi-automatic handgun from his pocket. It is well settled that a hearing “court's credibility determination is entitled to great deference” (People v. Coleman, 57 A.D.3d 1519, 1520, 870 N.Y.S.2d 180, lv. denied 12 N.Y.3d 782, 879 N.Y.S.2d 59, 906 N.E.2d 1093 ; see generally People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761, 395 N.Y.S.2d 635, 363 N.E.2d 1380 ), and we conclude that “[t]he police officer's testimony at the suppression hearing does not have all appearances of having been patently tailored to nullify constitutional objections ..., and was not so inherently incredible or improbable as to warrant disturbing the ... court's determination of credibility” (People v. Walters, 52 A.D.3d 1273, 1274, 860 N.Y.S.2d 710, lv. denied 11 N.Y.3d 795, 866 N.Y.S.2d 622, 896 N.E.2d 108 [internal quotation marks omitted] ). We therefore see no basis in the record for disturbing the court's finding that the officer had reasonable suspicion to stop and search defendant, or its ultimate suppression ruling.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.