People v. Beckford

• Decision Date: 04 December 2013
• Citation: 976 N.Y.S.2d 160,112 A.D.3d 646,2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 08095
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Garfield BECKFORD, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

112 A.D.3d 646
976 N.Y.S.2d 160
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 08095

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,
v.
Garfield BECKFORD, appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Dec. 4, 2013.

[976 N.Y.S.2d 161]

Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Ellen Fried of counsel), for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Sharon Y. Brodt, and Mariana Zelig of counsel), for respondent.

WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., L. PRISCILLA HALL, PLUMMER E. LOTT, and SANDRA L. SGROI, JJ.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of Supreme Court, Queens County (Kron, J.), rendered April 7, 2011, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, petit larceny, criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, criminal mischief in the fourth degree, possession of burglar's tools, and resisting arrest, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Grosso, J.), of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony and physical evidence on the ground that it was the product of his unlawful seizure by the police.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, his initial detention by the complainant, an off-duty police officer, was not unlawful. The hearing evidence demonstrates that the complainant discovered the defendant and another man standing next to the complainant's car at approximately 2:30 a.m. in a desolate commercial area. The car, which the complainant had parked there some 90 minutes earlier, had been broken into, its interior was in disarray, and items were missing from it. The defendant was holding two large plastic bags and, upon seeing the complainant, he and the other man promptly walked away from the vehicle and crossed the street. Under the totality of these circumstances, the complainant's detention of the defendant

[976 N.Y.S.2d 162]

was supported by reasonable suspicion ( see generally People v. De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d 210, 223, 386 N.Y.S.2d 375, 352 N.E.2d 562; People v. Flores, 88 A.D.3d 902, 931 N.Y.S.2d 342; People v. Bryant, 246 A.D.2d 662, 668 N.Y.S.2d 231).

Likewise, the subsequent detention of the defendant by another police officer was supported by probable cause, including information received from the complainant indicating that the defendant had taken his property and had engaged in a violent physical altercation with him ( see People v. Gonzalez, 13 A.D.3d 465, 785 N.Y.S.2d 751; People v. Sanabria, 266 A.D.2d 41, 698 N.Y.S.2d 622). Moreover, the Supreme Court properly denied suppression of the two bags and their contents because they were abandoned by the defendant ( see People v. Soscia, 96 A.D.3d 1081, 946 N.Y.S.2d 653; People v. Rogers, 92 A.D.3d 903, 939 N.Y.S.2d 496).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), we find that it was legally sufficient to prove his guilt of robbery in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence ( seeCPL 470.15 [5]; People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor ( see People v. Mateo, 2 N.Y.3d 383, 779 N.Y.S.2d 399, 811 N.E.2d 1053, cert. denied542 U.S. 946, 124 S.Ct. 2929, 159 L.Ed.2d 828; People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672). Upon...