Opinion
2014-08-20
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Jason D. COOPER, appellant.
Robert C. Mitchell, Riverhead, N.Y. (Louis E. Mazzola of counsel), for appellant. Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Marcia R. Kucera of counsel), for respondent.
Robert C. Mitchell, Riverhead, N.Y. (Louis E. Mazzola of counsel), for appellant. Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Marcia R. Kucera of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (R. Doyle, J.), rendered November 29, 2011, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
There is no merit to the defendant's contention that certain physical evidence recovered after law enforcement officials executed a search warrant at his premises should have been suppressed. There is a strong judicial preference for search warrants ( see People v. Hanlon, 36 N.Y.2d 549, 558, 369 N.Y.S.2d 677, 330 N.E.2d 631;People v. Williams, 249 A.D.2d 343, 344, 670 N.Y.S.2d 893). A warrant application must provide the court with sufficient information to support a reasonable belief that evidence of illegal activity will be present at the specific time and place of the search ( see People v. Bigelow, 66 N.Y.2d 417, 423, 497 N.Y.S.2d 630, 488 N.E.2d 451;People v. Fricchione, 20 A.D.3d 433, 797 N.Y.S.2d 310). Contrary to the defendant's contention, there was probable cause to issue the subject search warrant ( see CPL 690.10; People v. Bigelow, 66 N.Y.2d at 423, 497 N.Y.S.2d 630, 488 N.E.2d 451;People v. Traymore, 241 A.D.2d 226, 229–230, 672 N.Y.S.2d 44;People v. Ianniello, 156 A.D.2d 469, 548 N.Y.S.2d 755).
The defendant's contention regarding the alleged unreliability of the confidential informant who provided information leading to the issuance of the warrant is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Maxis, 50 A.D.3d 922, 855 N.Y.S.2d 251;People v. Toellner, 299 A.D.2d 567, 750 N.Y.S.2d 646;see also People v. Valverde, 13 A.D.3d 658, 789 N.Y.S.2d 62). In any event, the defendant's contention is without merit ( see People v. Corr, 28 A.D.3d 574, 816 N.Y.S.2d 82).
The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v. Felix, 58 N.Y.2d 156, 161, 460 N.Y.S.2d 1, 446 N.E.2d 757;People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675). SKELOS, J.P., AUSTIN, SGROI and LaSALLE, JJ., concur.