| People v Pope |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 00043 [113 AD3d 1121] |
| January 3, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Robert Pope, Appellant. |
—[*1] Frank A. Sedita, III, District Attorney, Buffalo (Nicholas T. Texido of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Kenneth F. Case, J.), renderedNovember 29, 2011. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, ofrobbery in the first degree (two counts) and robbery in the second degree (two counts).
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea ofguilty of two counts each of robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15 [4])and robbery in the second degree (§ 160.10 [1]). County Court properly deniedthat part of defendant's motion seeking suppression of items of physical evidence seizedfrom the house where police officers located defendant on the day of the robbery. Theevidence at the suppression hearing established that defendant was no more than a casualvisitor having "relatively tenuous ties" to the house (People v Ortiz, 83 NY2d840, 842 [1994]; see People vSommerville, 6 AD3d 1232, 1232 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 648[2004]). Defendant thus lacked standing to seek suppression of items seized therefrom(see People v Ramirez-Portoreal, 88 NY2d 99, 108 [1996]; People vRodriguez, 69 NY2d 159, 162 [1987]). To the extent that defendant contends thatthe items of physical evidence should have been suppressed as the fruit of aPayton violation, we conclude that the court properly determined that there wasno such violation inasmuch as defendant was arrested outside the house (see People vRoe, 73 NY2d 1004, 1006 [1989]; People v Moskal, 262 AD2d 986, 987[1999]). Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Scudder,P.J., Centra, Carni, Sconiers and Whalen, JJ.