Opinion
13681 Ind. No. 4465/15 Case No. 2018-1894
04-27-2021
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Rakeem DOUGLAS, Defendant–Appellant.
Caprice R. Jenerson, Office of the Appellate Defender, New York (Stephen R. Strother of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Stephen Kress of counsel), for respondent.
Caprice R. Jenerson, Office of the Appellate Defender, New York (Stephen R. Strother of counsel), for appellant.
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Stephen Kress of counsel), for respondent.
Gische, J.P., Kern, Mazzarelli, Kennedy, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Juan M. Merchan, J.), rendered August 16, 2017, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of six years, unanimously affirmed.
The court properly denied defendant's suppression motion. The police testimony at the hearing established that, after lawfully arresting defendant for possession of a gravity knife, the officers followed a valid procedure for an inventory search of defendant's car, which led to the recovery of a pistol (see People v. Padilla, 21 N.Y.3d 268, 272, 970 N.Y.S.2d 486, 992 N.E.2d 414 [2013], cert denied 571 U.S. 889, 134 S.Ct. 325, 187 L.Ed.2d 158 [2013] ). The forms used by the police were sufficient to create a meaningful inventory list and there is no indication that the inventory search was a ruse for searching for incriminating evidence (see People v. Walker, 20 N.Y.3d 122, 127, 957 N.Y.S.2d 272, 980 N.E.2d 937 [2012] ). The delay in completing the inventory procedure was satisfactorily explained by the particular circumstances of the police investigation (see People v. Echevarria, 173 A.D.3d 638, 639, 104 N.Y.S.3d 104 [1st Dept. 2019], lv denied 34 N.Y.3d 930, 109 N.Y.S.3d 749, 133 N.E.3d 455 [2019] ).
Defendant did not preserve his claims that the testifying officer lacked familiarity with inventory search procedures, that the search exceeded the permissible scope of an inventory search, and that the officer failed to make a valid determination that the knife recovered in the initial arrest was a then-illegal gravity knife. We decline to review these claims in the interest of justice. We do not reach defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel regarding the suppression proceedings, first raised in a footnote in the reply brief.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. The fact that defendant declined an offer of a lesser sentence in return for an appeal waiver does not entitle him to a reduction of sentence (see People v. Dilworth, 189 A.D.3d 636, 637, 137 N.Y.S.3d 43 [1st Dept. 2020] ).