From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Hammond

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 23, 1995
220 A.D.2d 684 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

October 23, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (DeLury, J.).


Ordered that the judgment under Indictment No. 7382/92 is modified, on the law, by reversing the conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, vacating the sentence imposed thereon, and dismissing that count; as so modified, the judgment under Indictment No. 7382/92 is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment under Indictment No. 14814/92 is affirmed.

The hearing court properly denied suppression of the physical evidence in question, since the apprehending officer had probable cause to stop and search the defendant (see, People v. McRay, 51 N.Y.2d 594; see also, People v. Goggans, 155 A.D.2d 689). At the suppression hearing, an undercover police officer with 11 years experience as a police officer, including five years in the narcotics unit, testified that on June 19, 1992, he observed the defendant, who was standing next to an outdoor free-standing telephone, reach down to a brown paper bag which was lying at the foot of the telephone stand, and extract what "appeared to be a vial" from the bag. The officer further observed that the defendant held the vial, which was approximately one inch in length, between his thumb and forefinger, and that the defendant handed the vial to a buyer who gave the defendant folded money in exchange.

When the defendant was arrested within minutes of the completion of the transaction, he had 24 "decks" of heroin, 18 vials of crack cocaine, $250 in currency, and a beeper on his person. Moreover, when the apprehending officer recovered the paper bag lying on the ground, not far from where the defendant was apprehended, he determined that the bag contained 13 vials of crack cocaine and four bags of marihuana.

Although the defendant failed to preserve for appellate review the issue of whether the court should have dismissed the lesser-inclusory count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, preservation of this issue is unnecessary to obtain appropriate relief (see, People v. Lee, 39 N.Y.2d 388; see also, People v. Butler, 192 A.D.2d 543). The defendant is correct in his assertion that his conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree must be dismissed pursuant to CPL 300.40 (3) (b).

The defendant's remaining contentions are either without merit or unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245; People v. Kazepis, 101 A.D.2d 816). Thompson, J.P., Altman, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Hammond

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 23, 1995
220 A.D.2d 684 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

People v. Hammond

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. RICHARD HAMMOND…

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

Date published: Oct 23, 1995

Citations

220 A.D.2d 684 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
632 N.Y.S.2d 836

Citing Cases

People v. Rivera

Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not…

People v. Mingo

To the extent that the defendant's contention can be reviewed, the record demonstrates that the defendant was…