Opinion
2012-11-9
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Reginald ABRAMS, Defendant–Appellant.
Reginald Abrams, Defendant–Appellant Pro Se. William J. Fitzpatrick, District Attorney, Syracuse (Victoria M. White of Counsel), for Respondent.
Reginald Abrams, Defendant–Appellant Pro Se. William J. Fitzpatrick, District Attorney, Syracuse (Victoria M. White of Counsel), for Respondent.
PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, LINDLEY, AND WHALEN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:
On his pro se appeal 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 contends that County Court erred in denying those parts of his omnibus motion seeking suppression of the weapon and his statements to the police. Although the court's bench decision denying defendant's suppression requests is an order within the meaning of CPL 710. 70(2) and thus it is the proper subject of appellate review ( see People v. Elmer, 19 N.Y.3d 501, 507–509, 950 N.Y.S.2d 77, 973 N.E.2d 172), we reject defendant's contentions.
We analyze defendant's contentions pursuant to the four-tiered framework for citizen-police encounters set forth in People v. De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d 210, 223, 386 N.Y.S.2d 375, 352 N.E.2d 562;see People v. Moore, 6 N.Y.3d 496, 498–499, 814 N.Y.S.2d 567, 847 N.E.2d 1141;People v. Hollman, 79 N.Y.2d 181, 184–185, 581 N.Y.S.2d 619, 590 N.E.2d 204. In addition, we “accord great weight to the determination of the hearing court with its particular advantage of having seen and heard the witnesses” ( People v. Williams, 202 A.D.2d 976, 976, 612 N.Y.S.2d 985,lv. denied83 N.Y.2d 916, 614 N.Y.S.2d 398, 637 N.E.2d 289). Consequently, where, as here, the hearing court's findings are supported by the record, they will not be disturbed ( see People v. McLee, 249 A.D.2d 995, 995, 672 N.Y.S.2d 164,lv. denied92 N.Y.2d 901, 680 N.Y.S.2d 65, 702 N.E.2d 850).
The evidence at the suppression hearing establishes that two Syracuse police officers were patrolling an area in which there had recently been a series of burglaries involving the theft of electronics equipment. They observed defendant, who appeared to be carrying a laptop computer under his arm. The officers stopped their vehicle and began to walk toward defendant, but had not yet spoken to him. At that point, the officers had engaged in, at most, a level one intrusion by approaching defendant in order to seek information based on some objective credible reason not necessarily indicative of criminality ( see Hollman, 79 N.Y.2d at 185, 581 N.Y.S.2d 619, 590 N.E.2d 204;De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d at 223, 386 N.Y.S.2d 375, 352 N.E.2d 562;People v. Rodriguez, 82 A.D.3d 1614, 1615, 919 N.Y.S.2d 636,lv. denied17 N.Y.3d 800, 929 N.Y.S.2d 108, 952 N.E.2d 1103). Before the officers took any other action, however, defendant said “[t]hey're just jeans,” and held up the object he was carrying. As he did so, the officers clearly observed the outline of a handgun in defendant's sweatshirt. Furthermore, as they continued to approach defendant but before they spoke, defendant turned and ran, dropping the handgun as he fled. The officers pursued him and took him into custody. Consequently, when the officers seized defendant, they had reasonable suspicion to believe that he had committed a crime ( see People v. Leung, 68 N.Y.2d 734, 736–737, 506 N.Y.S.2d 320, 497 N.E.2d 687;De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d at 223, 386 N.Y.S.2d 375, 352 N.E.2d 562; People v. Lowe, 237 A.D.2d 903, 904, 654 N.Y.S.2d 518,lv. denied89 N.Y.2d 1096, 660 N.Y.S.2d 390, 682 N.E.2d 991).
Contrary to defendant's further contention, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying his request for a new attorney without conducting a hearing. “The decision to allow a defendant to substitute counsel is largely within the discretion of the court to which the application is made ... [Furthermore, c]ontrary to defendant'simplicit contention, he did not establish that there was a complete breakdown in communication with h[is] attorney” ( People v. Jackson, 85 A.D.3d 1697, 1699, 925 N.Y.S.2d 746,lv. denied17 N.Y.3d 817, 929 N.Y.S.2d 806, 954 N.E.2d 97 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v. Kobza, 66 A.D.3d 1387, 1388–1389, 886 N.Y.S.2d 265,lv. denied13 N.Y.3d 939, 895 N.Y.S.2d 330, 922 N.E.2d 919;see generally People v. Linares, 2 N.Y.3d 507, 510–511, 780 N.Y.S.2d 529, 813 N.E.2d 609).
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.