| People v Bennett |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 10174 [57 AD3d 912] |
| December 23, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v ShawnBennett, Appellant. |
—[*1] Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Andrea M. DiGregorio and Cristin N.Connell of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Honorof, J.),rendered June 6, 2007, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourthdegree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, upon a jury verdict, andimposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Sullivan, J.), of thosebranches of the defendant's omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence and statementshe made to law enforcement officials.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The credibility determinations of a hearing court are entitled to great deference on appeal, and willnot be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d759, 761 [1977]; People v Jakins, 277 AD2d 328 [2000]; People v Gordon, 242AD2d 640 [1997]; People v Rose, 204 AD2d 745, 746 [1994]). Here, the record supportsthe hearing court's conclusion that the People established that the search leading to the recovery of thedefendant's drugs was lawful, that the police had probable cause to arrest the defendant, and that thedefendant's written statement to law enforcement officials was obtained after a knowing, intelligent, andvoluntary waiver of his constitutional rights. That the testimony of the police witnesses regarding thevoluntariness of the consent was contradicted by that of the defendant's witness, Moore, did no morethan "create[ ] a question of credibility for the hearing court, whose findings should not be disturbedabsent a showing that they are clearly erroneous" (People v Washington, 182 AD2d 791, 791[1992]; see People v Oates, 104 AD2d 907, 910 [1984]). There is no such showing here,where the record supports the court's [*2]determination that the formergirlfriend of the defendant, previously convicted for grand larceny, was not credible. Moreover, theproof permitted the hearing court to infer that the disparities between the time of arrest indicated on thesearch consent form and a log book entry at police headquarters were the result of an administrativeerror, and did not prove the police witnesses' testimony incredible (see People v Ellerbe, 265AD2d 569, 570 [1999]; People v Oates, 104 AD2d at 910).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, and drawing all reasonableinferences in the prosecution's favor (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), wefind that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover,upon our independent review pursuant to CPL 470.15 (5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt wasnot against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]). Prudenti,P.J., Dillon, Eng and Leventhal, JJ., concur.