| People v Dumbleton |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 08415 [67 AD3d 1451] |
| November 13, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Randy J.Dumbleton, Appellant. |
—[*1] Michael C. Green, District Attorney, Rochester (Patrick H. Fierro of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Frank P. Geraci, Jr., J.), renderedAugust 23, 2006. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in thefirst degree.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of robberyin the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15 [4]), defendant contends that the police lackedprobable cause to arrest him at the time that he was placed in handcuffs. At the suppressionhearing, defendant contended only that he had been arrested without probable cause, withoutspecifying that the arrest occurred when he was placed in handcuffs. Defendant's presentcontention therefore is unpreserved for our review (see CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline toexercise our power to review it as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (seeCPL 470.15 [6] [a]). Defendant also failed to preserve for our review his additionalcontention that the police lacked reasonable suspicion to place him in handcuffs in the attic andto hold him for a showup identification prior to arresting him (see CPL 470.05 [2]). Inany event, that contention lacks merit (see People v Cash J.Y., 60 AD3d 1487, 1489 [2009], lvdenied 12 NY3d 913 [2009]). The information known to the police when they placeddefendant in handcuffs and held him for a showup identification "supported a reasonablesuspicion of criminal activity . . . [, i.e.,] that quantum of knowledge sufficient toinduce an ordinarily prudent and cautious [person] under the circumstances to believe criminalactivity is at hand" (People v William II, 98 NY2d 93, 98 [2002] [internal quotationmarks omitted]; see People vBooth, 61 AD3d 1330, 1331 [2009]). "Indeed, in conducting the showup identification,'the police diligently pursued a minimally intrusive means of investigation likely to confirm ordispel suspicion quickly, during which time it was necessary to detain the defendant' "(Booth, 61 AD3d at 1331). We note in addition that "a 'defendant's flight may beconsidered in conjunction with other attendant circumstances' in determining whether reasonablesuspicion justifying a seizure exists" (People v Pines, 99 NY2d 525, 527 [2002]). Thepolice had probable cause to arrest defendant after the victim identified him during the showupidentification procedure (see People vSantiago, 41 AD3d 1172, 1174 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 964 [2007]; People v Williams, 30 AD3d 980,981 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d [*2]852 [2006]).
Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that there was not a sufficientfoundation for the admission of dog tracking evidence (see CPL 470.05 [2]), and wedecline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest ofjustice (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Martoche, Smith, Carniand Pine, JJ.