People v Chandler
2008 NY Slip Op 08525 [56 AD3d 284]
November 13, 2008
Appellate Division, First Department
As corrected through Wednesday, January 7, 2009


The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v
BarretChandler, Appellant.

[*1]Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (William A. Loeb ofcounsel), for appellant.

Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York (Ellen Stanfield Friedman of counsel),for respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles J. Tejada, J., at suppression hearing;Arlene Goldberg, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered July 12, 2006, convicting defendant ofcriminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and two counts of criminal possession of aweapon in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to anaggregate term of 20 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant's suppression motion. Although neither employeespelled out defendant's role in the scheme, two store employees told the police that bothdefendant and his codefendant were jointly engaged in an effort to make purchases with stolencredit cards. According to an officer, one of the employees specifically pointed out the two menas "the individuals with the cards." This information was corroborated when an officer saw thecodefendant leave a cash register, walk over to defendant to converse with him, return to the cashregister, depart with defendant, and exchange bags with defendant while they were walking in thestreet. Although defendant argues that the police lacked any evidence that he was a participant inthe codefendant's illegal activity, we conclude that the totality of the circumstances providedprobable cause for defendant's arrest. In order to establish probable cause for defendant's arrest,the People were not required to prove his accessorial liability under Penal Law § 20.00beyond a [*2]reasonable doubt (see Brinegar v UnitedStates, 338 US 160, 175 [1949]; People v Bigelow, 66 NY2d 417, 423 [1985]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Lippman, P.J., Sweeny,Catterson, Acosta and Renwick, JJ.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.