| People v Camber |
| 2018 NY Slip Op 08838 [167 AD3d 1558] |
| December 21, 2018 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Ronzell Camber, Appellant. |
Frank H. Hiscock Legal Aid Society, Syracuse (Darienn M. Powers of counsel), fordefendant-appellant.
William J. Fitzpatrick, District Attorney, Syracuse (Kenneth H. Tyler, Jr., of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (John J. Brunetti, A.J.),rendered April 12, 2016. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminalpossession of a weapon in the second degree.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty,of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03 [3]).We now affirm.
Supreme Court properly refused to suppress a loaded gun recovered from defendant's personafter the vehicle in which he was riding pulled over. Within approximately one minute and threeblocks of a corroborated 911 report of shots fired, a police officer observed a vehicle thatappeared to match the description provided by the 911 caller of a vehicle "possibly involved" inthe shooting. Although defendant correctly argues that the officer effectuated a level three seizureat the moment he ordered defendant and the other occupants to remain in the vehicle (seePeople v Harrison, 57 NY2d 470, 476 [1982]), we nevertheless agree with the People that,given the circumstances described above, the officer possessed the requisite reasonable suspicionof criminality to effect that seizure (seePeople v Martinez, 147 AD3d 642, 642 [1st Dept 2017], lv denied 29 NY3d1034 [2017]; People v Williams,126 AD3d 1304, 1304-1305 [4th Dept 2015], lv denied 25 NY3d 1209 [2015];People v Sanchez, 216 AD2d 207, 208 [1st Dept 1995], lv denied 87 NY2d 850[1995]). Defendant's ensuing refusal to follow that officer's directive to show his hands andrelated evasive conduct justified the subsequent pat frisk in which the gun was discovered (see People v Mack, 49 AD3d1291, 1292 [4th Dept 2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 866 [2008]).
The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Smith, J.P., Lindley, DeJoseph,NeMoyer and Curran, JJ.