| People v Furet |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 00065 [47 AD3d 430] |
| January 8, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Dwight Furet, Also Known as Ira Morsby,Appellant. |
—[*1] Dwight Furet, appellant pro se. Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York (Erica Ashley Reed of counsel), forrespondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael R. Ambrecht, J., on CPL 190.50motion; John Cataldo, J., at hearing, nonjury trial and sentence), rendered May 5, 2006,convicting defendant of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and resistingarrest, and sentencing him, as a second felony drug offender previously convicted of a violentfelony, to an aggregate term of six years, unanimously affirmed.
The hearing court properly denied defendant's suppression motion. The court properlyconcluded that the fact that defendant matched the description ("male black, wearing a darkjacket, tan shirt, tan pants") of a person selling drugs, coupled with attendant circumstances,provided probable cause for his arrest. The police found defendant, late at night, in the same parkwhere the sale had occurred a half hour earlier. As a detective approached with his shielddisplayed, defendant began to walk away, and when the detective identified himself, thedefendant ran and discarded his jacket. This combination of factors provided reasonablesuspicion to detain defendant and, once he was identified by the officers who had observed theearlier sale transaction, probable cause to arrest (see e.g. People v Brown, 237AD2d 221 [1997], lv denied 90 NY2d 855 [1997]).
For the reasons stated in our decision in People v Lemos (34 AD3d 343 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d924 [2007]), we find that defendant did not preserve his claim that the court unlawfully imposeda mandatory surcharge and fees without including them in its oral pronouncement of sentence.Were we to review the claim, we would find it without merit (id.). Since the impositionof the surcharge and fees was a ministerial matter containing no element of discretion (compare People v Williams, 44 AD3d335 [2007]), these portions of the sentence could be imposed by way of the court'scommitment sheet and worksheet, which constituted "[entries] upon the records of the court"(Hill v United States ex rel. Wampler, 298 US 460, 464 [1936]).[*2]
Defendant's pro se claim that he was deprived of his rightto appear before the grand jury is without merit (see People v Wiggins, 89 NY2d 872,873 [1996]). Concur—Lippman, P.J., Mazzarelli, Gonzalez, Sweeny and McGuire, JJ.