| People v Rahman |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 05530 [85 AD3d 1062] |
| June 21, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Addullah Rahman, Appellant. |
—[*1] Thomas P. Zugibe, District Attorney, New City, N.Y. (Itamar J. Yeger of counsel; BenjaminY. Abed on the brief), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Rockland County (Alfieri, J.),rendered August 30, 2007, convicting him of possession of a forged instrument in the first degree(272 counts), criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree, and criminalpossession of a forgery device, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings upfor review the denial, after a hearing (Bartlett, J.), of that branch of the defendant's omnibusmotion which was to suppress physical evidence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the People satisfied their burden of establishing thatthe police had probable cause to arrest him because the informant had a sufficient basis for hisstatements to the police, and was reliable (see Spinelli v United States, 393 US 410[1969]; Aguilar v Texas, 378 US 108 [1964]; People v DiFalco, 80 NY2d 693,697 [1993]; People v Bigelow, 66 NY2d 417, 424-426 [1985]; People v Whittle, 48 AD3d 714,714 [2008]; People v Nabarrete, 18AD3d 782, 782-783 [2005]; Peoplev Rios, 11 AD3d 641, 642 [2004]). Upon arresting the defendant and the passenger ofthe vehicle he was driving, the police had probable cause to believe that the vehicle containedevidence or contraband related to the crime for which the arrest was being made and, therefore,the warrantless search of the vehicle was proper (see People v Galak, 81 NY2d 463,466-467 [1993]; People v Belton, 55 NY2d 49, 54-55 [1982]; People v Thorne, 61 AD3d 708,708 [2009]; People v Whittle, 48 AD3d at 714-715). Accordingly, that branch of thedefendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence was properly denied.
The County Court did not err in allowing the defendant to represent himself during the trial.The record, as a whole, demonstrates that the defendant made a knowing, voluntary, andintelligent decision to waive his right to counsel and to proceed pro se (see People v Providence, 2 NY3d579, 580 [2004]; People v Arroyo, 98 NY2d 101, 103-104 [2002]; People v Allison, 69 AD3d 740,741 [2010]). The County Court undertook a sufficiently searching inquiry of the defendant to bereasonably certain that the dangers and disadvantages of giving up the fundamental right tocounsel were impressed upon him (see People v Providence, 2 NY3d at 580; People vAllison, 69 AD3d at 741).[*2]
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legallyinsufficient to support the convictions of possession of a forged instrument in the first degree isunpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484,491-492 [2008]; People v Carranza, 306 AD2d 351, 352 [2003], affd 3 NY3d729 [2004]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution(see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient toestablish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v Rodriguez, 71 AD3d 450, 452-453 [2010], lvgranted 15 NY3d 777 [2010]; People v Dallas, 46 AD3d 489, 491 [2007]; cf. People v Bailey, 13 NY3d 67,71-72 [2009]). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of theweight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accordgreat deference to the fact-finder's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, andobserve demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], cert denied 542US 946 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing therecord here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt as to his convictions of possession of aforged instrument in the first degree was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633[2006]; People v Hill, 41 AD3d733, 734 [2007]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).Rivera, J.P., Eng, Roman and Miller, JJ., concur.