| People v Radellant |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 02519 [105 AD3d 556] |
| April 16, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Akwasiba Radellant, Appellant. |
—[*1] Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Ryan Gee of counsel), forrespondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert M. Stolz, J.), rendered March3, 2010, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of marijuana inthe second degree, endangering the welfare of a child and unlawfully dealing with a childin the first degree, and sentencing her to an aggregate term of 45 days, concurrent withfive years' probation, unanimously affirmed.
The court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress her statements. The recordsupports the court's finding that the questioning by the detective was not the product ofcustodial interrogation, and thus did not require Miranda warnings. A reasonableinnocent person in defendant's position would not have thought that she was in custody(see People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585 [1969], cert denied 400 US 851[1970]). Defendant returned to her apartment of her own volition, unaccompanied by thepolice. In the apartment, she was free to walk around, and the police did not restrain herin any way or do anything to convey that she was not free to leave; additionally, neitherthe questioning nor the atmosphere was coercive with regard to defendant (seee.g. People v Miller,100 AD3d 466 [1st Dept 2012]; People v Dillhunt, 41 AD3d 216, 217 [1st Dept 2007],lv denied 10 NY3d 764 [2008]). The police activity at the apartment was likely tohave conveyed the impression that an investigation was in progress, but there was noindication that the police had decided to arrest anyone but the codefendant, who washandcuffed. Defendant's claim of inadequate CPL 710.30 (1) (a) notice is waived, and iswithout merit in any event.
The court also properly denied defendant's motion to suppress physical evidencerecovered from her person after she made an incriminating statement and was placedunder arrest. The information in the possession of the police concerning defendant'sconstructive possession of the marijuana found in the apartment was substantially thesame as the evidence presented in the People's case at trial. As discussed below, thatevidence established her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and her assertion that thisevidence did not even establish probable cause is without merit.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weightof the evidence (see People vDanielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for [*2]disturbing the jury's credibility determinations, including itsresolution of a conflict between a detective's testimony and that of defendant concerningthe content of defendant's statement. The evidence warrants the conclusion thatdefendant exercised dominion and control over the contraband while acting in concertwith the codefendant (see Penal Law § 10.00 [8]; People v Manini,79 NY2d 561, 573 [1992]; People v Torres, 68 NY2d 677 [1986]). Defendantleased the apartment where the marijuana was found, and used it to operate a day carefacility. Moreover, defendant made a statement to the police that had no reasonableinterpretation except that she was doing the codefendant a "favor" by letting him storecontraband in her apartment. As in People v Mojica (81 AD3d 506, 506 [1st Dept 2011],lv denied 17 NY3d 808 [2011]), "[t]he jury could have readily rejected anysuggestion that the codefendant somehow sneaked the contraband into the apartmentwithout defendant's knowledge." Finally, we have considered and rejected defendant'schallenges to her convictions on the two misdemeanor counts.
Defendant did not preserve any of her challenges to the prosecutor's summation. Tothe extent defendant objected during the summation, none of her objections had anypreservation effect because she made general objections and failed to request furtherrelief when the court sustained the objections. We decline to review her claims in theinterest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find no basis for reversal (see Peoplev Overlee, 236 AD2d 133 [1st Dept 1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 976 [1998];People v D'Alessandro, 184 AD2d 114, 118-119 [1st Dept 1992], lvdenied 81 NY2d 884 [1993]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., DeGrasse,Abdus-Salaam, Manzanet-Daniels and Clark, JJ.