Opinion
3990, 3990A.
Decided June 24, 2004.
Judgments, Supreme Court, New York County (James A. Yates, J. at suppression hearing; Renee A. White, J. at plea and sentence), rendered February 19, 2002, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree and bail jumping in the first degree, and sentencing her, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 4½ years, 2½ to 4½ years and 2 to 4 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.
Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Gayle Pollack of counsel), for appellant.
Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York (Beth Beller of counsel), for respondent.
Before: Nardelli, J.P., Ellerin, Williams, Lerner, Catterson, JJ.
The court properly denied defendant's suppression motion. Defendant's suppression claim turns on the legality of the police checkpoint stop of the vehicle in which she was a passenger. Defendant did not preserve her claim that the People failed to establish which, of several purposes, was the primary purpose ( see People v. Jackson, 99 N.Y.2d 125, 132-133) of the checkpoint at issue, and the suppression court did not "expressly decide" that particular issue (CPL 470.05; see People v. Turriago, 90 N.Y.2d 77, 83-84). We decline to review this claim in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the officers' testimony established that the primary purpose of the vehicle licensing and safety checkpoint met constitutional standards ( see City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32; Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 658; see also State v. Orr, 91 Ohio St.3d 389, cert denied 534 U.S. 972).
Defendant received effective assistance of counsel at the suppression hearing ( see People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 713-714; see also Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668). There is no reason to believe that defendant would have been entitled to suppression had counsel raised the additional issues concerning the checkpoint that defendant now claims should have been raised.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.