| People v Fields |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 02783 [127 AD3d 782] |
| April 1, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Timothy Fields, Appellant. |
Sanjay Bhatt, White Plains, N.Y., for appellant.
Janet DiFiore, District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Jennifer Spencer, LaurieSapakoff, and Steven A. Bender of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County(Cacace, J.), rendered November 30, 2010, convicting him of criminal possession of aweapon in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree,upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial,after a hearing, of those branches of the defendant's omnibus motion which were tosuppress physical evidence and his statements to law enforcement officials.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contentions, the hearing court properly denied that branchof his omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence. Police Officer WilliamSkinner was initially justified in approaching the defendant, who was seated in a vehicle,and in requesting his license and registration after observing the defendant walk across apublic street to the vehicle while carrying an open container of alcohol, in violation of aMount Vernon City ordinance (see CPL 140.10 [1] [a]; People vBothwell, 261 AD2d 232 [1999]). Upon learning from a radio report that, based onthe make, model, and license plate number, the vehicle in which the defendant wasseated had recently been the subject of a nearby carjacking involving gunfire, Skinnerand another officer justifiably entertained a reasonable suspicion that the defendant hadcommitted a felony or misdemeanor, and were justified in requesting that he exit thevehicle and in detaining him (see People v Argyris, 99 AD3d 808, 810 [2012],affd 24 NY3d 1138 [2014]; People v Allen, 78 AD3d 1521, 1521 [2010]; People v Fleming, 65 AD3d702, 703 [2009]; People vJogie, 51 AD3d 1038, 1039 [2008]). When Police Officer Michael Christiansenapproached the vehicle and observed a handgun in plain view in the open glovecompartment of the vehicle, the officers had probable cause to arrest the defendant (see People v Blake, 123 AD3d838 [2014]; People vBraham, 97 AD3d 689, 689 [2012]; People v Fleming, 65 AD3d at 704;People v Glenn, 53 AD3d622, 623 [2008]).
The hearing court also properly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibusmotion which was to suppress his statements to law enforcement officials. A policedetective read the Miranda rights (see Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436[1966]) to the defendant, and the defendant responded that he understood. Although thedefendant refused to sign the waiver on the Miranda rights card, a defendant whorefuses to sign a written waiver of his rights, including a Miranda rights card,may [*2]nevertheless orally waive his or her rights (see People v Dobbins, 123AD3d 1140 [2014]; Peoplev Wilkinson, 120 AD3d 521, 521 [2014]; People v Thornton, 87 AD3d 663, 664 [2011]; People v Saunders, 71 AD3d1058, 1059 [2010]). Here, a detective testified, and the hearing court found, that thedefendant said that he would not sign the card, but that he would speak to the lawenforcement officials. A review of the totality of the circumstances demonstrates that thedefendant's resulting statements were voluntarily made (People v Wilkinson, 120AD3d at 521; People v Saunders, 71 AD3d at 1059-1060).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see People vContes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish thedefendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt of criminal possession of a weapon in thesecond degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree. Moreover, infulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of theevidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348 [2007]), wenevertheless accord great deference to the factfinder's opportunity to view the witnesses,hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410[2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing therecord here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of theevidence (see People vRomero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]). Contrary to the defendant's contention, hisconduct was not consistent with innocent possession (see People v Rossi, 99 AD3d 947, 951 [2012], affd24 NY3d 968 [2014]; People vCrawford, 96 AD3d 964, 964-965 [2012]; People v Sooknanan, 92 AD3d 810, 810 [2012]; seegenerally People v Williams, 50 NY2d 1043, 1045 [1980]).
Viewing the record as a whole, the defendant was afforded meaningfulrepresentation and, thus, was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel (seeStrickland v Washington, 466 US 668 [1984]; People v Benevento, 91 NY2d708 [1998]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137 [1981]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80[1982]). Dillon, J.P., Dickerson, Cohen and Duffy, JJ., concur.