| People v Sumpter |
| 2021 NY Slip Op 01158 [191 AD3d 1160] |
| February 25, 2021 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Shamar J. Sumpter, Appellant. |
Rural Law Center of New York, Castleton (Kelly L. Egan of counsel), for appellant.
Chad W. Brown, District Attorney, Johnstown (Amanda M. Nellis of counsel), forrespondent.
Lynch, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Fulton County (Sira, J.), renderedDecember 20, 2017, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of criminal possession ofa controlled substance in the third degree and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the thirddegree.
In November 2016, defendant was charged by indictment with two counts each of criminalsale of a controlled substance in the third degree (counts 1 and 3) and criminal possession of acontrolled substance in the third degree (counts 2 and 4) in connection with two controlled-buyoperations that occurred on August 15, 2016 and November 2, 2016. In July 2017, defendant wascharged in another four-count indictment with the same crimes (two counts each) pertaining totwo additional controlled-buy operations that occurred on July 20, 2017 and July 25, 2017.
A trial on the November 2016 indictment ended in a mistrial after the parties were unable toselect a full jury. The People thereafter moved to consolidate the indictments for trial and CountyCourt granted the motion. A jury trial ensued on the consolidated indictments. Following theclose of the People's case-in-chief, County Court granted defendant's motion to dismiss thecharges set forth in the July 2017 indictment, but otherwise denied defendant's motion as itpertained to the charges set forth in the November 2016 indictment. Defendant was convicted ofcounts 1 and 2 of the November 2016 indictment pertaining to the August 15, 2016controlled-buy, but acquitted of counts 3 and 4 pertaining to the November 2, 2016 transaction.He was sentenced, as a second felony offender, to a prison term of six years followed by threeyears of postrelease supervision on each conviction, the sentences to run concurrently. Defendantappeals.
Defendant contends that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence because no witnessactually observed him sell or possess narcotics. We disagree. " 'A weight of the evidencereview requires this Court to first determine whether, based on all the credible evidence, adifferent finding would not have been unreasonable. Where a different finding would not havebeen unreasonable, this Court must weigh the relative probative force of conflicting testimonyand the relative strength of conflicting inferences that may be drawn from the testimony todetermine if the verdict is supported by the weight of the evidence' " (People v Garrand, 189 AD3d1763, 1764 [2020], quoting Peoplev Stover, 178 AD3d 1138, 1139 [2019], lv denied 34 NY3d 1163 [2020]). Asrelevant here, a person is guilty of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the thirddegree when he or she knowingly and unlawfully possesses a narcotic drug with intent to sell it(see Penal Law § 220.16 [1]). A person is guilty of criminal sale of acontrolled substance in the third degree when he or she knowingly and unlawfully sells said drug(see Penal Law § 220.39 [1]).
At trial, Brad Schaffer, a sergeant with the [*2]City ofGloversville Police Department, testified that he was involved in the August 15, 2016controlled-buy operation. Schaffer met with a confidential informant (hereinafter CI No. 1) onthat date, who agreed to cooperate in the operation in exchange for consideration in a pendingcriminal case regarding cocaine possession. CI No. 1 was fitted with a wire, provided with $50and directed to place a phone call to defendant for the purpose of arranging the purchase ofnarcotics. A detective conducted a thorough search of CI No. 1's person and vehicle before sheproceeded to the meet-up location, which yielded no illicit substances. The People entered intoevidence the audio recording from CI No. 1's call to defendant prior to the buy, on which shestated that she was placing a call to "Shay" and he answered in the affirmative when she asked if$50 would be "okay" for the transaction. CI No. 1 then proceeded to drive to the original meet-uplocation, but received a phone call from defendant asking to switch locations and to meet at aCumberland Farms in the City of Gloversville, Fulton County. Schaffer followed CI No. 1 to thatlocation and parked across the street from the Cumberland Farms. Schaffer testified that, uponcompleting the transaction, CI No. 1 returned to his vehicle with a Styrofoam cup and advisedthat "the item [she] had purchased was inside of it." Upon looking inside of the cup, Schaffer saw"[o]ne single corner tie style bag" that contained a substance that was later identified as cocaine.Schaffer noted that CI No. 1 did not return with any of the money that he had provided to her forthe transaction, and she was searched again thereafter.
The People also elicited testimony from Michal Calbet, a retired police detective, whoconfirmed that defendant was the subject of the August 2016 operation. Calbet, who parkedacross the street from the Cumberland Farms, used a camera with a telephoto lens to view thetransaction, testifying that he saw CI No. 1 and defendant walk into the store together. Calbetalso watched the surveillance video from the transaction, noting that, although it did not showdefendant place anything into a cup, it showed him hand a coffee cup to CI No. 1, who thenwalked out of the store without paying for anything.
CI No. 1 also testified, confirming that she was thoroughly searched prior to the transactionand was given money for the purchase. She testified that, upon entering the Cumberland Farmswith defendant, he went to the coffee section and then passed her a Styrofoam cup in exchangefor money. She then exited the store, entered her vehicle, placed the coffee cup on the passengerseat, proceeded back to the designated meet-up spot and handed the cup to the detectives. Oncross-examination, CI No. 1 acknowledged that she has struggled with an addiction to crackcocaine and that she had used crack "once or twice" while working for the police. However, shemaintained that she was in rehab [*3]at the time of her testimonyand was not currently using crack. The surveillance footage from the August 2016 CumberlandFarms transaction was also entered into evidence, which corroborated CI No. 1's testimony.
Although a different verdict would not have been unreasonable, when viewing the evidencein a neutral light and according deference to the jury's credibility determinations, we concludethat the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Small, 174 AD3d 1130, 1132 [2019], lvdenied 34 NY3d 954 [2019]; Peoplev Morris, 165 AD3d 1489, 1490 [2018], lv denied 32 NY3d 1207 [2019]; People v Miller, 160 AD3d 1040,1043 [2018], lv denied 32 NY3d 939 [2018]). The key dispute is whether defendantplaced the cocaine in the cup that he handed to CI No. 1. Although no witness testified thatdefendant was observed doing so, the circumstantial evidence amply supports that inference.Although defendant contends that CI No. 1 was not credible given her admission to prior druguse and her agreement to participate in the operation to benefit her own criminal case, hercredibility was "fully vetted" at trial and was consistent with testimony of law enforcement andthe images captured on the surveillance video (People v Wilson, 100 AD3d 1045, 1046 [2012], lv denied22 NY3d 998 [2013]; see People v Morris, 165 AD3d at 1490; People v Peterkin, 159 AD3d1196, 1197 [2018], lv denied 31 NY3d 1151 [2018]).
We are also unpersuaded by defendant's contention that County Court abused its discretion inconsolidating the indictments for trial. "When two or more indictments against the samedefendant . . . charge different offenses of a kind that are joinable in a singleindictment pursuant to [CPL 200.20 (2)], the court may, upon application of either the [P]eopleor a defendant, order that such indictments be consolidated" (CPL 200.20 [4]). Separate offensesare joinable under CPL 200.20 (2) (c) when, "[e]ven though based upon different criminaltransactions, . . . such offenses are defined by the same or similar statutoryprovisions and consequently are the same or similar in law." When offenses are joinable underthat subsection, "determination of a consolidation application is discretionary, with the courtweighing 'the public interest in avoiding duplicative, lengthy and expensive trials against thedefendant's interest in being protected from unfair disadvantage' " (People v Martinez, 165 AD3d1288, 1290 [2018], quoting People v Lane, 56 NY2d 1, 8 [1982]; see CPL200.20 [5]; People v Piznarski, 113AD3d 166, 180 [2013], lv denied 23 NY3d 1041 [2014]).
Here, the facts underlying both indictments were "separately presented, uncomplicated andeasily segregable in the jury's mind [and t]here was no substantial difference in the quantum ofproof at trial" (People v Jackson, 187 AD2d 869, 870 [1992] [internal quotation marks,brackets and citation omitted]). In our view, County Court acted within its discretion byconsolidating the indictments[*4], and any potential prejudice todefendant was dissipated by the court's instruction to the jury that evidence of the chargescontained in the July 2017 indictment was "not to be considered in [the jury's] deliberations asevidence of guilt for counts [1] through [4]" of the November 2016 indictment. The jury'sdecision to acquit defendant of two of the charges in the November 2016 indictment furtherdemonstrated that it was able "to independently evaluate the evidence presented with respect toeach separate incident" (People v Simpkins, 110 AD2d 790, 792 [1985], lvdenied 66 NY2d 618 [1985]; see People v Jackson, 187 AD2d at 870).
Defendant's contention that the People committed a Brady violation by failing topromptly disclose that a second confidential informant who engaged in the July 2017 controlledbuys (hereinafter CI No. 2) would not be testifying at trial is, as conceded by defendant,unpreserved for review (see People vFort, 146 AD3d 1017, 1019 [2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 1031 [2017]; People v Lundy, 48 AD3d 1046,1047 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 936 [2008]). In any event, to the extent that defendantmakes this argument in the context of a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel, it isunavailing. Defendant argues that the People's delay in disclosing this information deprived himof the opportunity to move to sever the indictments and that his counsel was ineffective forfailing to do so. We are unpersuaded. The witness attendance issue came to light during thefourth day of trial, when County Court addressed the People's material witness application as toCI No. 2. The record shows that this witness had been subpoenaed to testify on October 17, 2017,the second day of trial. The prosecutor explained that, three days before the trial began, shepersonally spoke to CI No. 2 and emphasized her obligation to testify, albeit the witnessresponded that she would not appear. When the witness failed to attend as scheduled, the Peoplepromptly applied for a material witness order (see CPL 620.10). The court granted theapplication and issued an arrest warrant for CI No. 2 on October 19, 2017. Ultimately, thewitness did not testify. Contrary to defendant's argument, this scenario does not present aBrady violation. Either the People or a defendant may seek a material witness order tosecure the attendance of a recalcitrant witness and neither party is entitled to notice when such anapplication is made by the opposing party (see People v Fermin, 150 AD3d 876, 878 [2017], lv denied30 NY3d 1060 [2017]). As the People subpoenaed the witness, spoke to her directly andpromptly moved to compel her attendance, there was no impropriety on their part. Moreover,County Court specifically directed the jury that it was not to use evidence of the controlled buysperformed by CI No. 2 in its deliberations on the counts charged in the November 2016indictment. In these circumstances, the People's ostensible delay in disclosure did not prejudice[*5]defendant, and counsel's failure to request a discretionaryseverance pursuant to CPL 200.20 (3) did not deprive him of a fair trial (see People vAlvarez, 251 AD2d 265, 265 [1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 980 [1998]).
We reject defendant's contention that the Cumberland Farms surveillance video was notproperly authenticated and, therefore, should not have been admitted into evidence. "Thedecision to admit videotape evidence rests within the sound discretion of the trial court and willnot be disturbed absent a lack of foundation for its introduction or a demonstrated abuse of thecourt's discretion" (People vSanders, 185 AD3d 1280, 1283 [2020] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted],lv denied 35 NY3d 1115 [2020]). "A videotape may be authenticated by the testimony ofa witness to the recorded events or of an operator or installer or maintainer of the equipment thatthe videotape accurately represents the subject matter depicted" (People v Edmonds, 165 AD3d1494, 1497 [2018] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted]; see People v Goldman, 35 NY3d582, 595 [2020]; People vPrice, 29 NY3d 472, 476 [2017]). "Evidence establishing the chain of custody of thevideotape may additionally buttress its authenticity and integrity, and even allow for acceptableinferences of reasonable accuracy and freedom from tampering" (People v Patterson, 93NY2d 80, 84 [1999] [citation omitted]).
The store manager of the subject Cumberland Farms explained that the store maintains avideo surveillance system called "Raven" that stores surveillance footage for up to six months.The manager testified that, when she was contacted by police about the August 2016 controlledbuy, she typed the relevant date and time into the Raven database, obtained the surveillancevideo pertaining to the transaction and downloaded it onto a DVD. When shown a copy ofPeople's exhibit No. 27—the tape that was ultimately played for the jury—themanager confirmed that it was the DVD that she had handed over to police pertaining to theAugust 2016 transaction. She affirmed that she had recently reviewed the DVD's contents andthat it was "exactly what [she had] downloaded for [the] Gloversville Police Department." As thestore manager's testimony supported the conclusion that the surveillance video accuratelyrepresented the events depicted thereon, the video was properly authenticated and entered intoevidence (see People v Patterson, 93 NY2d at 84; People v Sanders, 185 AD3d at1283-1284; People v Oquendo, 152AD3d 1220, 1221 [2017], lv denied 30 NY3d 982 [2017]).
We further reject defendant's contention that the sentence is harsh and excessive. The factthat defendant was offered a plea deal that would have secured a more favorable sentence thanthe one ultimately imposed after trial does not establish that he was penalized for exercising hisright to trial (see People v Pena, 50 NY2d 400, 412 [1980], cert denied 449 US1087 [1981]; People v Cummings, [*6]188 AD3d 1449,1454 [2020]). Defendant is a multistate offender with a lengthy criminal history dating back to2003. On this record, we find no abuse of discretion or extraordinary circumstances that wouldjustify a modification of the sentence in the interest of justice (see People v Cummings,188 AD3d at 1454; People vHorton, 173 AD3d 1338, 1342 [2019], lv denied 34 NY3d 933 [2019]).
Garry, P.J., Clark, Aarons and Colangelo, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.