Opinion
323 KA 15-01421
06-03-2022
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Howard R. WHITE, Also Known as Prophet, Defendant-Appellant.
EFTIHIA BOURTIS, ROCHESTER, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. HOWARD R. WHITE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT PRO SE. SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (DEREK HARNSBERGER OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
EFTIHIA BOURTIS, ROCHESTER, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
HOWARD R. WHITE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT PRO SE.
SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (DEREK HARNSBERGER OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: PERADOTTO, J.P., LINDLEY, WINSLOW, AND BANNISTER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: We previously held this case, reserved decision and remitted the matter to Supreme Court to conduct a suppression hearing, and we rejected defendant's remaining contentions ( People v. White , 192 A.D.3d 1539, 140 N.Y.S.3d 843 [4th Dept. 2021] ). Upon remittal, after a hearing the court determined that the detention of defendant by the police in a patrol car and the securing of defendant's cell phone was lawful, and the court therefore refused to suppress evidence arising from defendant's detention. We affirm. Contrary to defendant's sole contention in his pro se supplemental brief on resubmission, the hearing record does not support the conclusion that the testifying officers had "lacked present recollection" of the events ( People v. Grover , 78 A.D.2d 590, 590, 432 N.Y.S.2d 422 [4th Dept. 1980] ). Defendant raises no further contentions with respect to the court's refusal to suppress evidence following the hearing and has thus abandoned any such contentions (see People v. Blair , 129 A.D.3d 1514, 1515, 9 N.Y.S.3d 900 [4th Dept. 2015], lv denied 26 N.Y.3d 965, 18 N.Y.S.3d 601, 40 N.E.3d 579 [2015], reconsideration denied 26 N.Y.3d 1038, 22 N.Y.S.3d 167, 43 N.E.3d 377 [2015] ).