| People v Glover |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 04069 [84 AD3d 977] |
| May 10, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Eugene Glover, Appellant. |
—[*1] Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Judith R. Sternberg and Donald Berk ofcounsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Donnino,J.), rendered March 26, 2010, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the seconddegree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, criminal possession of a weapon inthe fourth degree, criminal possession of marijuana in the fourth degree, and failing to signal aturn, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial,after a hearing pursuant to a stipulation in lieu of motions, of the suppression of physicalevidence and his statements to law enforcement officials.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The credibility determinations of a hearing court are accorded great deference on appeal, andwill not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see People v Tandle, 71 AD3d1176, 1178 [2010]; People vGlenn, 53 AD3d 622, 623-624 [2008]; People v Edwards, 29 AD3d 818 [2006]). Here, the record supportsthe hearing court's determination to credit a police officer's testimony that he observed thedefendant make a right turn without signaling, which justified the initial stop of his vehicle for atraffic infraction (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1163 [a]; People v Edwards, 14 NY3d 741,742 [2010]; People v Leiva, 33AD3d 1021, 1022 [2006]; People vParris, 26 AD3d 393, 394 [2006]). Upon approaching the vehicle, the police detected astrong odor of marijuana emanating from it. Additionally, in response to an investigatoryquestion, the defendant admitted that he was in possession of a gun and had marijuana in theglove compartment (see People vHardy, 77 AD3d 133, 141 [2010]). Under these circumstances, the police had probablecause to search both the vehicle and the defendant (see People v Hughes, 68 AD3d 894, 895 [2009]; People vParris, 26 AD3d at 394). Accordingly, the hearing court properly denied the suppression ofphysical evidence and the defendant's statements to law enforcement officials. Mastro, J.P.,Belen, Chambers and Roman, JJ., concur.