| People v Bilal |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 04052 [118 AD3d 448] |
| June 5, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Rashid Bilal, Appellant. |
Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Rachel Tillie Goldbergof counsel), for appellant.
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Philip Morrow of counsel), forrespondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert M. Stolz, J.), renderedDecember 15, 2010, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of aweapon in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of five years, unanimouslyaffirmed. Order, same court and Justice, entered on or about August 9, 2013, whichdenied defendant's CPL 440.10 motion to vacate the judgment, unanimouslyaffirmed.
Defendant was not deprived of effective assistance of counsel. Although counsel'sfailure to move to suppress the weapon had no strategic justification but was based on amisunderstanding of the law, that error did not cause defendant any prejudice under thestate or federal standards (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713-714[1998]; Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668 [1984]).
The CPL 440.10 motion court (People v Bilal, 41 Misc 3d 1203[A], 2013NY Slip Op 51568[U] [Sup Ct, NY County 2013]) correctly determined, based onundisputed material facts, that defendant would not have prevailed on a suppressionmotion. Unlike the situation in People v Clermont (22 NY3d 931 [2013]), this was not a"close" suppression issue (id. at 934) where a properly litigated motion mighthave been successful, or where a suppression hearing is now warranted in the interest offairness. Instead, the undisputed facts establish that, when added to the informationalready known to the police, defendant's flight created reasonable suspicion warrantingpursuit (see People vMoore, 6 NY3d 496, 500-501 [2006]; see also People v Collado, 72 AD3d 614 [1st Dept 2010],lv denied 15 NY3d 850 [2010]), and that the seizure was lawful, in any event,under the doctrine of abandonment (see People v Boodle, 47 NY2d 398, 402[1979], cert denied 444 US 969 [1979]).
Turning to defendant's direct appeal, we perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Moskowitz, DeGrasse, Manzanet-Daniels and Kapnick,JJ.