| People v Holmes |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 04623 [63 AD3d 1649] |
| June 5, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v WoodrowHolmes, Appellant. |
—[*1] William J. Fitzpatrick, District Attorney, Syracuse (Matthew H. James of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (John J. Brunetti, A.J.),rendered June 30, 2008. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminalpossession of a controlled substance in the third degree.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed, and thematter is remitted to Supreme Court, Onondaga County, for proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50(5).
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty ofcriminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16 [1]),defendant contends that Supreme Court erred in refusing to suppress the tangible evidence seizedfrom his person and statements that he made to police detectives after they stopped the vehicle inwhich he was a passenger. We reject that contention. The record of the suppression hearingsupports the court's determination that the detectives stopped defendant's vehicle based on theirobservation of a traffic violation and that they questioned defendant after finding drugs in thevehicle. Contrary to defendant's contention, "the fact that [the detectives] also had otherunderlying reasons or motives [for stopping the vehicle] is immaterial" (People v Douglas, 42 AD3d 756,757 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 922 [2007]; see People v Garcia, 30 AD3d 833, 834 [2006]; see generallyPeople v Robinson, 97 NY2d 341, 348-350 [2001]). Furthermore, the testimony ofdefendant at the suppression hearing that the detectives who stopped the vehicle did not observea traffic violation merely presents an issue of credibility that the court was entitled to resolve infavor of the People (see People vHackett, 49 AD3d 1285 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 864 [2008]; People vJohnson, 286 AD2d 929 [2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 756 [2002]).
Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant was illegally detained after the vehicle wasstopped, we reject his contention that the court erred in refusing to suppress the evidence inquestion as the fruit of that detention. In reviewing defendant's contention, "the dispositiveinquiry is whether the challenged evidence is come at by the exploitation of thatillegality so as to make it the product of that illegality" (People v Richardson, 9 AD3d783, 789 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 680 [2004]). "Under the circumstances of thiscase, we conclude that defendant's statements [and the tangible evidence seized from defendant'sperson] were not obtained by exploitation" of the allegedly illegal detention (People vPowers, 288 AD2d 861, 862 [2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 732 [2002]).Present—Scudder, P.J., Hurlbutt, Martoche, Smith and Centra, JJ.