Opinion
11-10-2016
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. James KNIGHTON, Defendant–Appellant. (Appeal No. 1.).
Frank H. Hiscock Legal Aid Society, Syracuse (Piotr Banasiak of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. William J. Fitzpatrick, District Attorney, Syracuse (James P. Maxwell of Counsel), for Respondent.
Frank H. Hiscock Legal Aid Society, Syracuse (Piotr Banasiak of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant.William J. Fitzpatrick, District Attorney, Syracuse (James P. Maxwell of Counsel), for Respondent.
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., CARNI, LINDLEY, CURRAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:In appeal No. 1, defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of marihuana in the third degree (Penal Law § 221.20 ) and, in appeal No. 2, defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (§ 220.16 [1] ). The pleas were entered during one plea proceeding, following the decision of County Court to deny suppression concerning all of the charges after a hearing. We reject defendant's contention that the testimony of the police officers at the suppression hearing was tailored to ify constitutional objections and was incredible as a matter of law (see People v. Holley, 126 A.D.3d 1468, 1469, 6 N.Y.S.3d 840, lv. denied 27 N.Y.3d 965, 36 N.Y.S.3d 626, 56 N.E.3d 906 ; People v. James, 19 A.D.3d 617, 618, 798 N.Y.S.2d 483, lv. denied 5 N.Y.3d 829, 804 N.Y.S.2d 43, 837 N.E.2d 742 ). “Questions of credibility are primarily for the suppression court to determine and its findings will be upheld unless clearly erroneous” (People v. Squier, 197 A.D.2d 895, 895, 602 N.Y.S.2d 250, lv. denied 82 N.Y.2d 904, 610 N.Y.S.2d 171, 632 N.E.2d 481 ; see generally People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761, 395 N.Y.S.2d 635, 363 N.E.2d 1380 ). “Nothing about the officer[s'] testimony was unbelievable as a matter of law, manifestly untrue, physically impossible, contrary to experience, or self- contradictory” (James, 19 A.D.3d at 618, 798 N.Y.S.2d 483 ). We therefore discern no basis in the record for disturbing the court's finding that probable cause existed for the traffic stops (see People v. Williams, 132 A.D.3d 1155, 1155–1156, 20 N.Y.S.3d 176, lv. denied 27 N.Y.3d 1157, 39 N.Y.S.3d 390, 62 N.E.3d 130 ; People v. Hale, 130 A.D.3d 1540, 1540, 14 N.Y.S.3d 603, lv. denied 26 N.Y.3d 1088, 23 N.Y.S.3d 645, 44 N.E.3d 943, reconsideration denied 27 N.Y.3d 998, 38 N.Y.S.3d 108, 59 N.E.3d 1220 ; People v. Mack, 114 A.D.3d 1282, 1282, 980 N.Y.S.2d 868, lv. denied 22 N.Y.3d 1200, 986 N.Y.S.2d 421, 9 N.E.3d 916 ).
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.