Opinion
2012-06-15
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Douglas K. MARTIN, Defendant–Appellant.
The Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc., Buffalo (Robert L. Kemp of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Frank A. Sedita, III, District Attorney, Buffalo (Donna A. Milling of Counsel), for Respondent.
The Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc., Buffalo (Robert L. Kemp of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Frank A. Sedita, III, District Attorney, Buffalo (Donna A. Milling of Counsel), for Respondent.
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, LINDLEY, AND SCONIERS, JJ.
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] ). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his challenge to the authenticity of the recording of police radio transmissions inasmuch as he did not object to their admission in evidence at the suppression hearing that preceded the plea ( seeCPL 470.05[2]; People v. Mack, 89 A.D.3d 864, 866, 932 N.Y.S.2d 163,lv. denied18 N.Y.3d 959, 944 N.Y.S.2d 488, 967 N.E.2d 713;People v. Alexander, 48 A.D.3d 1225, 1226, 851 N.Y.S.2d 807,lv. denied10 N.Y.3d 859, 860 N.Y.S.2d 485, 890 N.E.2d 248). In any event, defendant's contention that the recording is inauthentic because it may have been digitally “burned” is based upon mere speculation and is therefore without merit.
We reject defendant's further contention that Supreme Court erred in refusing to suppress the weapon found in his vehicle and his statements to the police, which he alleges were the fruit of an illegal stop and search of his vehicle. The police had reasonable suspicion to stop defendant's vehicle ( see People v. Caponigro, 76 A.D.3d 913, 913–914, 908 N.Y.S.2d 37,lv. denied15 N.Y.3d 952, 917 N.Y.S.2d 111, 942 N.E.2d 322;People v. Velez, 59 A.D.3d 572, 575, 873 N.Y.S.2d 657,lv. denied12 N.Y.3d 860, 881 N.Y.S.2d 672, 909 N.E.2d 595), and the incremental series of investigative steps taken thereafter were lawful ( see generally People v. Torres, 74 N.Y.2d 224, 231 n. 4, 544 N.Y.S.2d 796, 543 N.E.2d 61). Finally, to the extent that defendant's contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel survives his plea of guilty ( see People v. Hawkins, 94 A.D.3d 1439, 1441, 942 N.Y.S.2d 300), we conclude that it lacks merit ( see generally People v. Ford, 86 N.Y.2d 397, 404, 633 N.Y.S.2d 270, 657 N.E.2d 265).
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.