Opinion
1318 KA 16-01231
12-21-2018
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, v. RONZELL CAMBER, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
FRANK H. HISCOCK LEGAL AID SOCIETY, SYRACUSE (DARIENN M. POWERS OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (KENNETH H. TYLER, JR., OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
PRESENT:
FRANK H. HISCOCK LEGAL AID SOCIETY, SYRACUSE (DARIENN M. POWERS OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (KENNETH H. TYLER, JR., OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (John J. Brunetti, A.J.), rendered April 12, 2016. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
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]). We now affirm.
Supreme Court properly refused to suppress a loaded gun recovered from defendant's person after the vehicle in which he was riding pulled over. Within approximately one minute and three blocks of a corroborated 911 report of shots fired, a police officer observed a vehicle that appeared to match the description provided by the 911 caller of a vehicle "possibly involved" in the shooting. Although defendant correctly argues that the officer effectuated a level three seizure at the moment he ordered defendant and the other occupants to remain in the vehicle (see People v Harrison, 57 NY2d 470, 476 [1982]), we nevertheless agree with the People that, given the circumstances described above, the officer possessed the requisite reasonable suspicion of criminality to effect that seizure (see People v Martinez, 147 AD3d 642, 642 [1st Dept 2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 1034 [2017]; People v Williams, 126 AD3d 1304, 1304-1305 [4th Dept 2015], lv denied 25 NY3d 1209 [2015]; People v Sanchez, 216 AD2d 207, 208 [1st Dept 1995], lv denied 87 NY2d 850 [1995]). Defendant's ensuing refusal to follow that officer's directive to show his hands and related evasive conduct justified the subsequent pat frisk in which the gun was discovered (see People v Mack, 49 AD3d 1291, 1292 [4th Dept 2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 866 [2008]).
The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.
Entered: December 21, 2018
Mark W. Bennett
Clerk of the Court