| People v Collado |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 00570 [47 AD3d 547] |
| January 29, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Dionis Collado, Appellant. |
—[*1] Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York (Paula-Rose Stark of counsel), forrespondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene R. Silverman, J., at suppressionhearing; William A. Wetzel, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered September 6, 2005,convicting defendant of two counts of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as asecond violent felony offender, to concurrent terms of eight years, unanimously affirmed.
The court properly denied defendant's suppression motion. An unidentified complainantpointed to defendant and his companions and told the police that these men, one of whom wasallegedly armed with a handgun, tried to rob him. As the marked patrol car approached, the mentook various evasive actions that raised the officers' level of suspicion, and one of defendant'scompanions pulled out an air pistol resembling a firearm. At this point, the police had probablecause for the arrest and removal to the station house of all three men, including defendant. Thepolice made unsuccessful attempts to locate the unidentified complainant, but during thedetention at issue defendant was identified, at a lineup, by the victim of another robbery, leadingto the instant conviction. We do not find that the unidentified complainant's disappearancedetracted from the reliability of his complaint, particularly since the officers independentlycorroborated that information through their observation of suspicious behavior and an apparentfirearm (see People v Simpson, 244 AD2d 87, 91 [1998], appeal withdrawn 92NY2d 947 [1998]). Contrary to defendant's argument, he was not arrested on the basis of his"mere propinquity to others independently suspected of criminal activity" (Ybarra vIllinois, 444 US 85, 91 [1979]), but because the police had probable cause to believe he andthe others were involved in a joint criminal enterprise (see People v Davis, 308 AD2d343 [2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 570 [2003]).
The postrelease supervision (PRS) component of defendant's sentence was constitutionallyimposed. Although the court did not mention PRS during the sentencing proceedings, itsworksheet and commitment sheet reflect that defendant's sentence includes a five-year term ofPRS. Since defendant was a second violent felony offender convicted of a class C violent felony,a five-year term of PRS was mandatory. In contrast to situations where a court fails to pronounceorally a PRS term of discretionary length (see People v Williams, 44 AD3d [*2]335 [2007]), or where PRS is imposed by correctional officials withno court involvement (see People vFigueroa, 45 AD3d 297 [2007]), a PRS term of mandatory length may be imposed byway of court documents (see People vSparber, 34 AD3d 265, 266 [2006], lv granted 9 NY3d 882 [2007]).Concur—Lippman, P.J., Mazzarelli, Gonzalez, Sweeny and Acosta, JJ.