People v. Ford

• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Writing for the Court: Before CARRO
• Citation: People v. Ford, 612 N.Y.S.2d 575, 205 A.D.2d 310 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
• Decision Date: 02 June 1994
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Glenn FORD, Defendant-Appellant.

Page 575

612 N.Y.S.2d 575

205 A.D.2d 310

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Glenn FORD, Defendant-Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division First Department.

June 2, 1994.

Before CARRO, J.P., and WALLACH, ROSS, RUBIN and TOM, JJ.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan B. Carey, J.), rendered March 14, 1990, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of conspiracy in the second degree, two counts of murder in the second degree, and one count each of burglary in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 8 to 24 years on each conspiracy count, to be served consecutively to concurrent terms of 22 years to life, 5 to 15 years, 5 to 15 years, and 2 1/3 to 7 years on the murder, burglary, and weapon possession counts, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Contrary to defendant's contention, there was sufficient corroboration of accomplice testimony (People v. Breland, 83 N.Y.2d 286, 609 N.Y.S.2d 571, 631 N.E.2d 577), especially since nonaccomplice eyewitnesses directly implicated defendant in aspects of both the murder and the drug conspiracy.

Nor is there merit to defendant's contention that his motion to suppress physical evidence was improperly denied. The search of the car flowed directly from the lawful discovery of bullets and drugs on defendant's person (People v. Ellis, 62 N.Y.2d 393, 477 N.Y.S.2d 106, 465 N.E.2d 826) and was completely attenuated from the "seizure", if any, of the car (People v. Arnau, 58 N.Y.2d 27, 457 N.Y.S.2d 763, 444 N.E.2d 13, cert. denied 468 U.S. 1217, 104 S.Ct. 3585, 82 L.Ed.2d 883), which was, in any event, a reasonable exercise of police discretion (see, Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367, 375, 107 S.Ct. 738, 743, 93 L.Ed.2d 739).

Defendant was not prejudiced by his absence from a portion of a Sandoval proceeding, where the only issues resolved with finality were resolved in defendant's favor (People v. Favor, 82 N.Y.2d 254, 268, 604 N.Y.S.2d 494, 624 N.E.2d 631).

We find no error in the reception of evidence of defendant's drug activity outside the time frame of, but closely connected to, the charged drug conspiracy (People v. Cunningham, 48 N.Y.2d 938, 940, 425 N.Y.S.2d 59, 401 N.E.2d 182; see also, People v. Ventimiglia, 52 N.Y.2d 350, 360-361, 438 N.Y.S.2d 261, 420 N.E.2d 59); nor of a witness's cooperation agreement (People v. Cherry, 161 A.D.2d 185, 186-187, 554 N.Y.S.2d 884, lv....