| People v Brewer |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 04608 [73 AD3d 1199] |
| May 25, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Stanley Brewer, Also Known as Stanley Watson, Also Known as SedrickWatson, Appellant. |
—[*1] Janet DiFiore, District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Raffaelina Gianfrancesco, RichardLongworth Hecht, and Anthony J. Servino of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Adler,J.), rendered August 2, 2007, convicting him of burglary in the second degree (10 counts) andcriminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree (2 counts), upon a jury verdict, andimposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (DiBella, J.), ofthat branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, his arrest was supported by probable cause and,therefore, that branch of his motion which was to suppress physical evidence was properlydenied. Police Officer Josef Miedreich testified at the hearing that when he saw the defendantand the codefendant walking in the area where numerous residential burglaries had beenoccurring, he recognized them from their depiction in a wanted poster and still photographstaken from surveillance video footage in buildings where the burglaries had occurred, givinghim, at a minimum, a common-law right of inquiry (see People v Hollman, 79 NY2d181, 184-185 [1992]; People v Joseph, 10 AD3d 580 [2004]; People v Wilson, 5AD3d 408 [2004]; People v Bethea, 239 AD2d 510 [1997]). When Officer Miedreichapproached them, his suspicions were further aroused when, in response to his question as towhere they were headed, the codefendant said they were going to his car, but then pointed in thedirection opposite the one in which they had been headed (see People v Scott-Heron, 11AD3d 364 [2004]). Other police officers then arrived at the scene, and in response to a requestfor identification, the defendant reached into his back pocket, and the officers observed a watchfall out of his pocket, despite the fact that he was wearing a watch on his wrist. At that point thepolice had probable cause to believe that the defendant and the codefendant were the burglars(see CPL 70.10 [2]).
The defendant's arguments concerning a conflict of interest and ineffective assistance ofcounsel are based on matter dehors the record and, therefore, cannot be reviewed on directappeal (see People v Finch, 279 AD2d 588 [2001]; People v Joseph, 266 AD2d237 [1999]).[*2]
Finally, the defendant's contention that he was deprivedof a fair trial by certain comments made by the prosecutor during summation is unpreserved forappellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]) and, in any event, is without merit (see Peoplev DeRosa, 137 AD2d 612 [1988]). Mastro, J.P., Santucci, Chambers and Roman, JJ., concur.