| People v George |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 07958 [78 AD3d 728] |
| November 3, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v SeanGeorge, Appellant. |
—[*1]
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Freehill, J.),rendered October 29, 2007, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the thirddegree and criminal possession of marijuana in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposingsentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of those branches of thedefendant's omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence and his statements to lawenforcement officials.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The credibility determinations of a hearing court are accorded deference on appeal, and will not bedisturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see People v Tandle, 71 AD3d 1176 [2010]; People v Rivera, 59 AD3d 467[2009]). Here, the record supports the hearing court's determination that probable cause existed for thewarrantless search of the defendant's vehicle, based on the arresting officer's detection of the odor ofburnt marijuana emanating from the defendant's vehicle, and the defendant's admission that he hadearlier smoked marijuana (see People vParris, 26 AD3d 393 [2006]; People v Cirigliano, 15 AD3d 672 [2005]; People v Figueroa, 6 AD3d 720[2004]; People v Chestnut, 43 AD2d 260 [1974], affd 36 NY2d 971 [1975]).Accordingly, that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidencerecovered during the vehicle search was properly denied (see People v Cirigliano, 15 AD3d 672 [2005]; People v Fleury, 8 AD3d 585 [2004]).Further, because the search of the defendant's vehicle and his arrest were lawful, the defendant'ssubsequent statements to the police were not, contrary to the defendant's contention, subject tosuppression as stemming from an unlawful search and arrest (see People v Mais, 71 AD3d 1163 [2010]; People v Fleury, 8 AD3d 585 [2004];see generally Wong Sun v United States, 371 US 471 [1963]).
The defendant's additional contention that his plea of guilty was coerced is unpreserved forappellate review because the defendant never moved to withdraw his plea (see People v Perry, 60 AD3d 974[2009]; People v Velazquez, 21 AD3d388 [2005]). In any event, the contention is without merit (see People v Perry, 60 AD3d 974 [2009]). Skelos, J.P., Balkin,Chambers and Austin, JJ., concur.