CARTER, TARRELL J., PEOPLE v ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •            SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
    Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
    965
    KA 09-00854
    PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., FAHEY, SCONIERS, AND VALENTINO, JJ.
    THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,
    V                              MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
    TARRELL J. CARTER, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
    TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (KIMBERLY F. DUGUAY OF
    COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
    SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (AMANDA DREHER OF
    COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
    Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Alex R. Renzi,
    J.), rendered April 15, 2009. The judgment convicted defendant, upon
    his plea of guilty, of criminal possession 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]). Contrary to defendant’s
    contention, County Court properly refused to suppress the gun seized
    by the police from defendant’s person during a pat frisk conducted
    during a traffic stop. As defendant correctly concedes, the police
    officer lawfully stopped defendant’s vehicle because it had a broken
    taillight (see generally People v Fagan, 98 AD3d 1270, 1271, lv denied
    20 NY3d 1061; People v Dempsey, 79 AD3d 1776, 1777, lv denied 16 NY3d
    830), and defendant voluntarily exited the vehicle. Given defendant’s
    furtive behavior before and after exiting his vehicle, including being
    “fidgety” and “evasive” when answering the police officer’s questions,
    turning the right side of his body away from the police officer, and
    placing his right hand in his jacket pocket, the police officer
    “reasonably suspected that defendant was armed and posed a threat to
    [his] safety” (Fagan, 98 AD3d at 1271; see People v Daniels, 103 AD3d
    1204, 1205). “Based upon [his] reasonable belief that defendant was
    armed, the officer[] lawfully conducted [the] pat frisk” that resulted
    in the seizure of the gun (Fagan, 98 AD3d at 1271; see People v
    Batista, 88 NY2d 650, 654; People v Grant, 83 AD3d 862, 863-864, lv
    denied 17 NY3d 795).
    Entered:    September 27, 2013                     Frances E. Cafarell
    Clerk of the Court
    

Document Info

Docket Number: KA 09-00854

Filed Date: 9/27/2013

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/8/2016