| People v Hughes |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 09253 [68 AD3d 894] |
| December 8, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v JohnJ. Hughes, Appellant. |
—[*1] Thomas P. Zugibe, District Attorney, New City, N.Y. (Itamar J. Yeger and Carrie A.Ciganek of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Rockland County (Alfieri,J.), rendered May 29, 2007, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance inthe third degree (two counts), criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree, andunlawful possession of marijuana, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal bringsup for review the denial, after a hearing, of those branches of the defendant's omnibus motionwhich were to suppress physical evidence and his statements to law enforcement officials.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The initial stop of the vehicle driven by the defendant was justified by a state trooper'sobservations of three violations of the Vehicle and Traffic Law (see Vehicle and TrafficLaw §§ 1180 [d]; § 1128 [a], [d]; § 375 [2] [a] [3]; People vRobinson, 97 NY2d 341, 348-349 [2001]; People v Parris, 26 AD3d 393, 394 [2006]; People v Peterson, 22 AD3d 770,771 [2005]). Upon approaching the vehicle, the trooper detected the strong odor of burntmarijuana emanating from the vehicle, and observed some green vegetation on the passenger'sshirt, which he believed to be marijuana. In addition, the defendant admitted to the trooper thathe smoked marijuana earlier in the evening. Under these circumstances, the police had probablecause to search the vehicle, including the trunk (see United States v Ross, 456 US 798,825 [1982]; People v Langen, 60 NY2d 170, 180-182 [1983], cert denied 465 US1028 [1984]; People v Parris, 26 AD3d at 394; People v Peterson, 22 AD3d at771; People v Morgan, 10 AD3d369, 370 [2004]). Accordingly, the hearing court properly denied those branches of thedefendant's omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence and his statements to lawenforcement officials.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the County Court's supplemental instruction oncircumstantial evidence was meaningful and did not result in any prejudice to the defendant(see CPL 310.30; People vSanti, 3 NY3d 234, 248 [2004]; People v Almodovar, 62 NY2d 126, 131[1984]; People v Hayes, 48 AD3d831 [2008]; People v Vega, 291 AD2d 465 [2002]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).Dillon, J.P., Florio, Miller and Angiolillo, JJ., concur.