Opinion
01-02-2015
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Gary CHAPPELL, Defendant–Appellant.
The Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc., Buffalo (Caitlin M. Connelly of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Frank A. Sedita, III, District Attorney, Buffalo (Nicholas T. Texido of Counsel), for Respondent.
The Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc., Buffalo (Caitlin M. Connelly of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Frank A. Sedita, III, District Attorney, Buffalo (Nicholas T. Texido of Counsel), for Respondent.
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, and WHALEN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, following a nonjury trial, of driving while ability impaired ( Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192[1] ), aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree ( § 511[3][a][i] ), and speeding ( § 1180 [d] ). We reject defendant's contention that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction. The arresting officer testified that, after he stopped defendant's vehicle for speeding, defendant had glassy eyes and slurred speech, and he smelled of alcohol. In addition, defendant failed three of four field sobriety tests and refused to submit to a chemical test. That evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the People (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932 ), is legally sufficient to establish that defendant operated a motor vehicle while his ability to do so was impaired by alcohol (see People v. McDonald, 27 A.D.3d 949, 950, 811 N.Y.S.2d 492 ). The evidence is also legally sufficient to support the conviction of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree (see People v. Jarocha, 66 A.D.3d 1384, 1384, 885 N.Y.S.2d 803, lv. denied 13 N.Y.3d 908, 895 N.Y.S.2d 322, 922 N.E.2d 911 ). With respect to the speeding conviction, we conclude that, "even if the radar evidence standing alone were deemed insufficient to support the conviction, there is additional evidence here that sufficiently corroborates the accuracy of the radar reading so as to establish defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt" ( People v. Knight, 72 N.Y.2d 481, 488, 534 N.Y.S.2d 353, 530 N.E.2d 1273 ). Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the offenses in this bench trial (see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 ), we further conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 ). Finally, we agree with the People that defendant's attorney was not ineffective in failing to make a suppression motion "that ha [d] little or no chance of success" ( People v. Stultz, 2 N.Y.3d 277, 287, 778 N.Y.S.2d 431, 810 N.E.2d 883, rearg. denied 3 N.Y.3d 702, 785 N.Y.S.2d 29, 818 N.E.2d 671 ).
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.