From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. James

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 4, 2000
272 A.D.2d 75 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

May 4, 2000.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Nicholas Figueroa, J.), rendered October 14, 1998, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of 6½ years, unanimously affirmed.

Ellen Sue Handman, for Respondent.

Pro Se, for Defendant-Appellant.

SULLIVAN, P.J., NARDELLI, TOM, WALLACH, LERNER, JJ.


There is no basis upon which to disturb the court's credibility determinations, which are supported by the record. The police properly approached a van bearing a stolen license plate and other indicia of being a stolen vehicle. After defendant put his hands in his waistband and ignored the officer's command to show his hands, the officer reasonably believed that defendant was armed and dangerous, and properly drew his weapon in response (see, People v. Soto, 266 A.D.2d 74, 698 N.Y.S.2d 629;People v. Fajardo, 209 A.D.2d 284, lv denied 84 N.Y.2d 1031), instructing defendant not to move. When instead defendant reached under the driver's seat where he had been sitting, the officer reasonably believed that defendant had placed a weapon under the driver's seat, and was thus justified in conducting a search of that area, despite the fact that defendant was already outside the vehicle (see, People v. Carvey, 89 N.Y.2d 707).

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis upon which to disturb the jury's determinations concerning credibility. We find that there was ample evidence of defendant's possession of the weapon.

Defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim would require a C.P.L. 440.10 Crim. Proc. motion because it is based largely on matters of strategy and facts dehors the record and counsel has not had the opportunity to explain his trial tactics (People v. Brown, 45 N.Y.2d 825). Based on the existing record, we conclude that counsel provided meaningful representation (see, People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 713-714; People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137).

We have considered and rejected defendant's remaining claims.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

People v. James

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 4, 2000
272 A.D.2d 75 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

People v. James

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. GREGORY JAMES…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: May 4, 2000

Citations

272 A.D.2d 75 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
708 N.Y.S.2d 67

Citing Cases

People v. Walker

In our view, once defendant refused the officer's request to return to the vehicle and turned toward the…

People v. Walker

Here, we conclude that defendant's positioning and his refusal to comply with the officer's request to return…