| People v Quinones |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 09431 [45 AD3d 874] |
| November 27, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v George Quinones, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Thomas S. Burkaof counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ingram, J.),rendered May 11, 2005, convicting him of burglary in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, andimposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of the defendant'somnibus motion to suppress physical evidence and statements made to law enforcement officials.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The hearing court properly denied the defendant's motion to suppress physical evidence andstatements made to law enforcement officials because the police lawfully stopped and detainedthe defendant. The police had a founded suspicion that criminal activity was afoot when theyobserved the defendant, who matched the general description of a robbery suspect in a radio call,in the stairwell of the building where the reported robbery occurred (see People vHollman, 79 NY2d 181, 184-185 [1992]; People v De Bour, 40 NY2d 210, 223[1976]). The defendant's attempted flight, combined with the temporal proximity between thereported robbery and the officers' arrival on the scene, gave the police reasonable suspicion todetain the defendant (see People v Woods, 98 NY2d 627 [2002]; People v Wilson, 5 AD3d 408[2004]; People v Sergeant, 281 AD2d 438 [2001]; People v Blunt, 276 AD2d 495[2000]).
The defendant's contention that the search of his duffel bag without a warrant constituted anunreasonable search and seizure, was not raised at the suppression hearing, and thus, it isunpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]) and, in any event, is without merit(see [*2]People v Brown, 36 AD3d 931 [2007]).
Finally, the defendant's contention that his sentencing as a persistent felony offender violatedhis constitutional rights pursuant to Apprendi v New Jersey (530 US 466 [2000]) iswithout merit (see People v Rivera,5 NY3d 61 [2005], cert denied 546 US 984 [2005]; People v Rosen, 96NY2d 329 [2001], cert denied 534 US 899 [2001]; People v Hargroves, 27 AD3d 765 [2006]). Schmidt, J.P., Rivera,Florio and Balkin, JJ., concur.