People v. Ashley

Decision Date08 November 2007
Docket Number16699.
Citation2007 NY Slip Op 08319,845 N.Y.S.2d 539,45 A.D.3d 987
PartiesTHE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. RANDALL ASHLEY, Appellant.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Sullivan County (LaBuda, J.), rendered December 8, 2005, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crime of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and the traffic infractions of failure to signal and illegally tinted windows.

Cardona, P.J.

On March 9, 2005 around 10:00 P.M., Sullivan County Sheriff's Detective Jason Gorr began following defendant's vehicle after he observed Andrew Hawkins, an individual he recognized as a participant in an undercover drug transaction the previous day, enter the passenger side of the car. Thereafter, defendant was pulled over for failure to use his right-hand turn signal (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1163 [b]) and for excessively tinted windows on the vehicle (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 375 [12-a] [b] [2]). During the stop, Hawkins was seen reaching toward the floor of the passenger seat and, therefore, was removed from the vehicle. During the pat search of Hawkins, another officer observed defendant reaching across the console towards the passenger side of the car. Defendant was also removed and the passenger side of the vehicle was searched, revealing a loaded semiautomatic weapon hidden under the passenger seat.

Defendant's motion to suppress the evidence was denied and, following a joint trial with Hawkins, defendant was found guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and both charged traffic infractions. Defendant was sentenced to seven years in prison for the weapon conviction and 15 days for each traffic violation.

We do not agree that County Court erred in failing to suppress the evidence seized during the traffic stop. First of all, defendant's contention that there was insufficient proof to establish any traffic violations is being raised for the first time on appeal and, therefore, not preserved for our review. In any event, Gorr's unrefuted testimony regarding the traffic violations he observed provided probable cause to warrant a stop of the vehicle, and any underlying investigatory motive behind the stop is immaterial (see People v Robinson, 97 NY2d 341, 349-350 [2001]; People v Douglas, 42 AD3d 756, 757 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 922 [2007]).

Furthermore, we find no error in the limited search of the passenger side of the vehicle where the loaded weapon was found. Although defendant and Hawkins were out of the vehicle, neither one was in handcuffs or restrained. Furthermore, the vehicle was followed from a drug trafficking area and Hawkins was a known participant in a recent drug transaction. These circumstances, together with the furtive behavior of both defendant and Hawkins reaching towards the passenger side of the vehicle during the traffic stop, provided a reasonable basis to justify the limited search of the vehicle (see People v Mundo, 99 NY2d 55, 59 [2002]; People v Jones, 39 AD3d 1169, 1171 [2007]).

Next, defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree has not been preserved for our review by the generalized, nonspecific motion at the end of trial (see People v White, 41 AD3d 1036 [2007]; People v Carter, 34 AD3d 1342, 1342-1343 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 844 [2007]). In any event, were we to consider this issue, we would find that the testimony...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • People v. Kindred
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • November 1, 2012
    ...was properly denied. Even if his contention that the initial stop was not justified had been preserved ( see People v. Ashley, 45 A.D.3d 987, 988, 845 N.Y.S.2d 539 [2007],lv. denied10 N.Y.3d 761, 854 N.Y.S.2d 323, 883 N.E.2d 1258 [2008] ), suppression would not have been required, as the of......
  • People v. Newman
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • April 17, 2012
    ...sufficient to justify the limited intrusion of searching the area where a defendant's movements took place (see e.g. People v. Ashley, 45 A.D.3d 987, 845 N.Y.S.2d 539 [3d Dept.2007], lv. denied 10 N.Y.3d 761, 854 N.Y.S.2d 323, 883 N.E.2d 1258 [2008]; 942 N.Y.S.2d 100 People v. Jones, 39 A.D......
  • People v. Sheppard
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • July 3, 2014
    ...a reduction in the interest of justice ( see People v. Dawson, 110 A.D.3d 1350, 1353, 973 N.Y.S.2d 850 [2013];People v. Ashley, 45 A.D.3d 987, 989, 845 N.Y.S.2d 539 [2007],lv. denied10 N.Y.3d 761, 854 N.Y.S.2d 323, 883 N.E.2d 1258 [2008];People v. Abbott, 275 A.D.2d 481, 484, 711 N.Y.S.2d 6......
  • People v. Martinez
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • December 16, 2010
    ...preserve his remaining contentions that the police lacked probable cause to stop and arrest him ( see 912 N.Y.S.2d 786People v. Ashley, 45 A.D.3d 987, 988, 845 N.Y.S.2d 539 [2007], lv. denied 10 N.Y.3d 761, 854 N.Y.S.2d 323, 883 N.E.2d 1258 [2008] ) and the record provides no factual basis ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT