Opinion
2019–13172 Ind. No. 342/19
12-28-2022
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Lashawn LAWRENCE, appellant.
Laurette D. Mulry, Riverhead, NY (Louis E. Mazzola of counsel), for appellant. Raymond A. Tierney, Riverhead, NY (Rosalind C. Gray and Marion Tang of counsel), for respondent.
Laurette D. Mulry, Riverhead, NY (Louis E. Mazzola of counsel), for appellant.
Raymond A. Tierney, Riverhead, NY (Rosalind C. Gray and Marion Tang of counsel), for respondent.
COLLEEN D. DUFFY, J.P., FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, PAUL WOOTEN, JANICE A. TAYLOR, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Anthony Senft, Jr., J.), rendered October 15, 2019, convicting him of conspiracy in the fourth degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence. ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The County Court properly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence recovered from him following his arrest, as the evidence adduced at the hearing was sufficient to establish that the police had probable cause to arrest the defendant (see People v. Ellerbee, 203 A.D.3d 1068, 1068–1069, 165 N.Y.S.3d 592 ; People v. Green, 13 A.D.3d 646, 646, 789 N.Y.S.2d 500 ; People v. Bates, 305 A.D.2d 422, 422, 758 N.Y.S.2d 512 ; People v. McCloud, 182 A.D.2d 835, 837, 583 N.Y.S.2d 15 ). Facts and circumstances existed which, when viewed as a whole, would lead a reasonable person possessing the same expertise as the arresting officer to conclude that an offense had been committed, and that the defendant had committed that offense (see People v. Alexander, 200 A.D.3d 790, 791, 159 N.Y.S.3d 102 ; People v. Fleck, 167 A.D.3d 771, 772, 89 N.Y.S.3d 281 ; People v. Williams, 127 A.D.3d 1114, 1116, 7 N.Y.S.3d 434 ; People v. Wright, 8 A.D.3d 304, 306, 778 N.Y.S.2d 59 ).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932 ), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 ). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15[5] ; People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d at 348, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 ), we nevertheless accord great deference to the factfinder's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v. Mateo, 2 N.Y.3d 383, 410, 779 N.Y.S.2d 399, 811 N.E.2d 1053 ; People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 ). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902 ).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
DUFFY, J.P., CONNOLLY, WOOTEN and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.