| People v Page |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 01511 [137 AD3d 817] |
| March 2, 2016 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Jaberie Page, Appellant. |
Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, NY (Rahshanda Sibley of counsel), for appellant, andappellant pro se.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (John M. Castellano,Johnnette Traill, Jeanette Lifschitz, and Josette Simmons of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County(Aloise, J.), rendered April 23, 2013, convicting him of criminal possession of a weaponin the second degree (two counts), unlawful possession of pistol ammunition, criminalpossession of a weapon in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substancein the seventh degree, unlawful possession of marijuana, and resisting arrest, upon a juryverdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after ahearing (Paynter, J.), of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was tosuppress physical evidence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motionwhich was to suppress physical evidence recovered from his vehicle. "Pursuant to theautomobile exception to the warrant requirement, a warrantless search of a vehicle ispermitted when the police have probable cause to believe the vehicle containscontraband, a weapon, or evidence of a crime" (People v Vargas, 89 AD3d 771, 772 [2011]; see Peoplev Blasich, 73 NY2d 673, 678-679 [1989]; People v Tieman, 112 AD3d 975, 976 [2013]). Here, thepolice had probable cause to search the defendant's vehicle after a detective observed agun on the front passenger seat of the vehicle. Contrary to the defendant's contention, thedetective's testimony that he saw a gun on the front passenger seat was not incredible orpatently tailored to overcome constitutional objections (see People v Cruz, 131 AD3d706 [2015]; People vAbraham, 111 AD3d 756 [2013]).
The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court gave erroneous instructionsregarding reasonable doubt is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v Robinson, 88 NY2d 1001, 1001-1002 [1996]). In any event, thejury instructions, taken as a whole, conveyed the correct standard to be employed withrespect to the burden of proof, including reasonable doubt (see People v Fields,87 NY2d 821, 823 [1995]; People v King, 73 AD3d 1083, 1084 [2010]; People v Coles, 62 AD3d1022, 1023 [2009]; Peoplev Love, 37 AD3d 618, 619 [2007]; People v Sanchez, 29 AD3d 608 [2006]).
[*2] Contrary to the defendant's contention, his trialcounsel was not ineffective (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998];People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]). Rivera, J.P., Austin, Sgroi andBarros, JJ., concur.