Opinion
. 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.
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: SMITH, J.P., LINDLEY, DEJOSEPH, NEMOYER, AND CURRAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDERIt 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 N.Y.2d 470, 476, 457 N.Y.S.2d 199, 443 N.E.2d 447 [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 A.D.3d 642, 642, 49 N.Y.S.3d 33 [1st Dept. 2017], lv denied 29 N.Y.3d 1034, 62 N.Y.S.3d 303, 84 N.E.3d 975 [2017] ; People v. Williams, 126 A.D.3d 1304, 1304–1305, 6 N.Y.S.3d 204 [4th Dept. 2015], lv denied 25 N.Y.3d 1209, 16 N.Y.S.3d 532, 37 N.E.3d 1175 [2015] ; People v. Sanchez, 216 A.D.2d 207, 208, 629 N.Y.S.2d 215 [1st Dept. 1995], lv denied 87 N.Y.2d 850, 638 N.Y.S.2d 609, 661 N.E.2d 1391 [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 A.D.3d 1291, 1292, 853 N.Y.S.2d 764 [4th Dept. 2008], lv denied 10 N.Y.3d 866, 860 N.Y.S.2d 492, 890 N.E.2d 255 [2008] ).
The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.