Opinion
2014-01-3
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Derick W. BARKER, Defendant–Appellant. (Appeal No. 1.)
Appeal from a judgment of the Genesee County Court (Robert C. Noonan, J.), rendered April 2, 2012. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree. Bridget L. Field, Rochester, for Defendant–Appellant. Lawrence Friedman, District Attorney, Batavia (William G. Zickl of Counsel), for Respondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Genesee County Court (Robert C. Noonan, J.), rendered April 2, 2012. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree.
Bridget L. Field, Rochester, for Defendant–Appellant. Lawrence Friedman, District Attorney, Batavia (William G. Zickl of Counsel), for Respondent.
MEMORANDUM:
On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 220.09[1] ), defendant contends that County Court erred in denying his motion to suppress certain items of physical evidence. We reject that contention. The record supports the court's determination that the rental period of the hotel room in which the items were found had expired prior to the search by the police, and we thus conclude that “defendant lost his reasonable expectation of privacy in the hotel room and its contents, and the general manager of the hotel had the authority to consent to the search” (People v. D'Antuono, 306 A.D.2d 890, 890, 762 N.Y.S.2d 198, lv. denied100 N.Y.2d 593, 766 N.Y.S.2d 169, 798 N.E.2d 353, reconsideration denied100 N.Y.2d 641, 769 N.Y.S.2d 207, 801 N.E.2d 428, cert. denied541 U.S. 994, 124 S.Ct. 2027, 158 L.Ed.2d 503, reh. denied541 U.S. 1083, 124 S.Ct. 2434, 158 L.Ed.2d 1002; see People v. Kobza, 66 A.D.3d 1387, 1388, 886 N.Y.S.2d 265, lv. denied13 N.Y.3d 939, 895 N.Y.S.2d 330, 922 N.E.2d 919; People v. Rodriguez, 104 A.D.2d 832, 833–834, 480 N.Y.S.2d 155; see generally People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761, 395 N.Y.S.2d 635, 363 N.E.2d 1380). The court also properly determined that defendant abandoned any reasonable or legitimate expectation of privacy in a backpack that was located in the hotel room, by virtue of both his flight ( see People v. Gonzalez, 25 A.D.3d 620, 621, 810 N.Y.S.2d 87, lv. denied6 N.Y.3d 833, 814 N.Y.S.2d 82, 847 N.E.2d 379), and his disavowal of ownership of that backpack ( see People v. DuPree, 43 A.D.3d 1314, 1315, 842 N.Y.S.2d 630). Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed. SCUDDER, P.J., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, CARNI, and VALENTINO, JJ., concur.