People v. James (Reginald)

Opinion

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Reginald James, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (John H. Wilson, J.), rendered March 20, 2013, after a nonjury trial, convicting him of unlawful possession of marijuana, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (John H. Wilson, J.), rendered March 20, 2013, affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant's suppression motion. There is no basis for disturbing the court's credibility determinations, which are supported by the record (see People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]; People v Martin, 112 AD3d 453, 454 [2013]). In the early morning hours, the veteran sergeant, who had extensive experience in narcotics interdiction, observed defendant talking to another individual on the corner of 226th Street and White Plains Road, holding a plastic Ziploc bag containing a "brownish greenish" substance, which, based upon its color and packaging, the sergeant believed to be marijuana, based upon his training and experience. This, at a minimum, provided the officers with a founded suspicion of criminal activity and the right to exercise the common-law right of inquiry (see People v De Bour, 40 NY2d 210, 223 [1976]). Upon seeing the officers, defendant shoved the plastic bag into his pants and began walking in the opposition direction. When the officers stopped defendant, the sergeant could see the end of the plastic bag protruding from the waistband of defendant's pants. Under the circumstances, the sergeant was then justified in recovering the plastic bag from defendant (see People v Martin, 88 AD3d 473 [2011], affd 19 NY3d 914 [2012]).

The suppression court also properly declined to suppress defendant's spontaneous and voluntary statement to the police that he was not selling drugs (see People v Grant, 96 AD3d 779, 780 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 1026 [2012]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: January 24, 2017