Opinion
2014-03-28
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Lawrence E. WILLIAMS, II, Defendant–Appellant.
Lotempio & Brown, P.C., Buffalo (Michael H. Kooshoian of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Frank A. Sedita, III, District Attorney, Buffalo (Michael J. Hillery of Counsel), for Respondent.
Lotempio & Brown, P.C., Buffalo (Michael H. Kooshoian of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Frank A. Sedita, III, District Attorney, Buffalo (Michael J. Hillery of Counsel), for Respondent.
PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, FAHEY, PERADOTTO, AND WHALEN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:
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] ), unlawful possession of marihuana (§ 221.05), and operating a motor vehicle with excessively tinted windows (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 375 [12–a] [b][2] ). The conviction arises out of a lawful traffic stop of the vehicle driven by defendant ( see People v. Fagan, 98 A.D.3d 1270, 1271, 951 N.Y.S.2d 612,lv. denied20 N.Y.3d 1061, 962 N.Y.S.2d 611, 985 N.E.2d 921,cert. denied––– U.S. ––––, 134 S.Ct. 262, 187 L.Ed.2d 191), and a subsequent search of the vehicle after the police detected the odor of marihuana emanating therefrom ( see People v. Cuffie, 109 A.D.3d 1200, 1201, 972 N.Y.S.2d 383,lv. denied22 N.Y.3d 1087, 981 N.Y.S.2d 673;see generally People v. Blasich, 73 N.Y.2d 673, 678, 543 N.Y.S.2d 40, 541 N.E.2d 40). Defendant contends that Supreme Court erred in refusing to suppress evidence of the marihuana and handgun found by the police, as well as his statements to the police. Specifically, defendant contends that the evidence before the court was not sufficient to sustain a factual determination that the vehicle driven by defendant was lawfully searched by the police officers inasmuch as the testimony of the police officers at the suppression hearing was “contradictory, confusing[,] and ha[d] the appearance[ ] of being ... tailored to nullify constitutional objections.” We reject that contention. “Questions of credibility are primarily for the suppression court to determine and its findings will be upheld unless clearly erroneous” ( People v. Squier, 197 A.D.2d 895, 896, 602 N.Y.S.2d 250,lv. denied82 N.Y.2d 904, 610 N.Y.S.2d 171, 632 N.E.2d 481;see generally People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761, 395 N.Y.S.2d 635, 363 N.E.2d 1380). Here, although one of the arresting officers was unable to recall certain details of the traffic stop, his testimony was sufficiently corroborated by that of the other arresting officer ( see People v. Walker, 155 A.D.2d 916, 916, 547 N.Y.S.2d 739,lv. denied75 N.Y.2d 819, 552 N.Y.S.2d 569, 551 N.E.2d 1247;see also People v. Ponzo, 111 A.D.3d 1347, 1347, 975 N.Y.S.2d 274). “Nothing about the officer[s'] testimony was unbelievable as a matter of law, manifestly untrue, physically impossible, contrary to experience, or self-contradictory” ( People v. James, 19 A.D.3d 617, 618, 798 N.Y.S.2d 483,lv. denied5 N.Y.3d 829, 804 N.Y.S.2d 43, 837 N.E.2d 742). We therefore discern no basis in the record to disturb the suppression court's credibility assessment, and we conclude that its determination is supported by sufficient evidence in the record ( see generally People v. Yukl, 25 N.Y.2d 585, 588, 307 N.Y.S.2d 857, 256 N.E.2d 172,cert. denied400 U.S. 851, 91 S.Ct. 78, 27 L.Ed.2d 89;People v. Lopez, 85 A.D.3d 1641, 1641–1642, 924 N.Y.S.2d 871,lv. denied17 N.Y.3d 860, 932 N.Y.S.2d 25, 956 N.E.2d 806).
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.