| People v Azor |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 00383 [124 AD3d 671] |
| January 14, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Jean Azor, Appellant. |
Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, N.Y. (Lawrence T. Hausman of counsel), forappellant, and appellant pro se.
Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, SholomJ. Twersky, and Michael Brenner of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County(DiMango, J.), rendered January 14, 2011, convicting him of attempted criminalpossession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposingsentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Carroll, J.), of thatbranch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The People correctly acknowledge that the defendant's waiver of his right to appealwas invalid (see People vHesterbey, 121 AD3d 1127 [2014]).
The defendant challenges the propriety of the Supreme Court's denial, after ahearing, of that branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.The evidence adduced at the suppression hearing indicated that the defendant wasstopped for a traffic infraction, was unable to produce a driver's license, and, when heattempted to turn off the ignition, the ignition cylinder fell out of the steering column.Evidence before the hearing court indicated that one of the officers saw the handle of aknife on the defendant's person. The defendant was patted down for safety reasons and aknife of more than four inches in length was recovered from his person. The stop andfrisk was justified by a reasonable suspicion that the defendant was involved in a crime,and that the defendant posed a threat to the safety of the officers (see People v Davenport, 92AD3d 689, 691 [2012]). Thereafter, a revolver was properly recovered when, uponshining a flashlight on the engine compartment through a gap created by a crease in thedamaged hood of the car, the police had sufficient light to see the revolver in plain viewresting next to the car's battery (see People v Edwards, 29 AD3d 818 [2006]). Accordingly,that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidencewas properly denied.
The defendant's contention that his plea of guilty was not knowingly, voluntarily, andintelligently entered is unpreserved for appellate review, as he failed to move towithdraw his plea (see People vHeidgen, 22 NY3d 981 [2013]; People v Williams, 110 AD3d 746 [2013]; People v Colston, 68 AD3d1130 [2009]). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the exception to thepreservation requirement does not apply here because the defendant's plea allocution didnot clearly cast significant doubt on his guilt, negate an essential element of the crime, orcall into question the voluntariness of the plea (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d662, 666 [1988]; People vBeach, 118 AD3d 905 [2014]; People v Nash, 38 AD3d 684 [2007]). Dillon, J.P.,Hinds-Radix, Maltese and Barros, JJ., concur.