People v. Godallah

• Decision Date: 29 October 2015
• Citation: 132 A.D.3d 1146,2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 07864,19 N.Y.S.3d 119
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Luvadollar GODALLAH, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

132 A.D.3d 1146

19 N.Y.S.3d 119

2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 07864

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,

v.Luvadollar GODALLAH, Appellant.

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

Oct. 29, 2015.

M. Joe Landry, Schenectady, for appellant, and appellant pro se.

Robert M. Carney, District Attorney, Schenectady (Peter H. Willis of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion

LYNCH, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County (Drago, J.), rendered August 28, 2012, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of assault in the second degree (six counts), burglary in the first degree (six counts) and endangering the welfare of a child.

Defendant was charged in a 22–count indictment with various crimes stemming from a home invasion that occurred on January 26, 2011 at an apartment located in the City of Schenectady, Schenectady County. Living in the apartment were Melissa Columbus and her infant child, her brother, Brad Columbus, and her boyfriend, Anthony Nieves. During the home invasion, each of the three adult residents were stabbed. Melissa Columbus managed to call 911 during the ordeal and when the police arrived, they discovered and arrested James Tedeschi, defendant's roommate. Defendant was picked up approximately three hours later. After a jury trial, defendant was found guilty of assault in the second degree (six counts), burglary in the first degree (six counts) and endangering the welfare of a child. The People submitted a persistent violent felony offender statement pursuant to CPL 400.15(2). Thereafter, County Court sentenced defendant, as a persistent violent felony offender, to an aggregate prison term of 24 years to life. Defendant now appeals.

At trial, the evidence included testimony by Tedeschi, who was also charged but pleaded guilty to the charges in the indictment. Tedeschi testified that it was defendant's idea to go to the apartment to steal money and drugs. Tedeschi explained that to disguise themselves before entering the apartment, he wore a hooded sweatshirt, hat and ski mask and that defendant wore a “face thing[ ]” and “some big red sunglasses.” Tedeschi testified that, once they were in the apartment, someone jumped on him and, as he was knocked to the floor, he observed defendant “strik[e] downwards” towards the person on top of him. Tedeschi testified that, as he got up from the floor, he saw blood “everywhere.” Tedeschi identified certain voices in a police audio recording of the event as his and defendant's.

Melissa Columbus testified that at 4:54 a.m. on January 26, 2011, she was awakened by the sound of people in her apartment. She called for Nieves, who was sleeping in the room with her, urged him to get up, and then called the police. Nieves testified that he ran out of the room and jumped on one of the intruders. Melissa Columbus began screaming to wake Brad Columbus. She testified that there were two men in the apartment, one was white, the other was black, taller and dressed in black. The taller intruder came into her bedroom, grabbed her phone and began demanding to know where “the bread” was. She testified that he threw her into the dining room, where she could see Nieves and Brad Columbus on the floor, both covered in blood. When she got up to check on her child, the taller man stabbed her in the thigh. Melissa Columbus explained that as she was being stabbed, she noticed that the taller intruder was wearing a hat with a ski mask and a pair of sunglasses, and that he had a “mole, a beauty mark [or] something” on his face. She testified that when the police arrived, the taller man jumped out of the window.

Nieves testified that he noticed only that one of the two intruders was tall and “lanky.” Brad Columbus testified that he knew Tedeschi and that he had previously met a man named “Luvly” at Tedeschi's home, who was taller than both he and Tedeschi and who had two small tattoos below one eye. On the night of the invasion, Brad Columbus pulled Tedeschi's mask off and recognized him. He recalled that the taller man, who was wearing a mask and had a tattoo on his face, stabbed him in the leg and in the back of the head. He also testified that the taller man was shouting and asking for “bread” and “weed.”

Keith Lawyer, a police officer, testified that when he arrived at the apartment shortly after 6:00 a.m. on the morning of the incident, Melissa Columbus described Tedeschi's accomplice as wearing a mask and having tattoos that resembled teardrops under one eye. Lawyer also testified that Tedeschi gave him the address of the apartment that he shared with defendant, advised that defendant was named “Luvy or Luvly” and provided Lawyer with the name of defendant's girlfriend. When Lawyer arrived at Tedeschi's apartment, the girlfriend was there and she revealed that defendant's brother, Raheem Sanford, was also in the apartment. Lawyer questioned Sanford, who was later arrested on an unrelated charge. He also asked defendant's girlfriend and another woman who was at the apartment to accompany him to the police station for questioning. Lawyer testified that while en route, approximately one hour later and one mile from Tedeschi's apartment, he observed a “taller black male” walking on the side of the road, noticed that the pedestrian resembled Sanford, and when he asked the two women in the backseat whether it was defendant, both put their heads down but did not otherwise respond.

Lawyer testified that when he pulled over and approached defendant, he noticed the tattoos under one eye that were not teardrops but dollar signs. Defendant confirmed, when asked, that he was Luvly. Lawyer advised defendant that his name had been raised in an investigation with regard to the home invasion, but defendant claimed to have no knowledge of the event. Next, Lawyer explained that he asked defendant to interlace his fingers behind his head to facilitate a pat down and that, as a result, an interior pocket on defendant's jacket was exposed and Lawyer observed a knife. Lawyer placed handcuffs on defendant and waited for an evidence officer to arrive on the scene. The jury also heard expert testimony that forensic testing revealed Nieves' DNA on the knife.

Initially, we reject defendant's claim that Lawyer did not have probable cause to arrest him and that County Court should have held a Mapphearing. Generally, a motion to suppress evidence must “state the ground or grounds of the motion and must contain sworn allegations of fact, whether of the defendant or of another person or persons supporting such grounds” (CPL 710.60[1]). The trial court “may summarily deny the motion if ... [t]he motion papers do not allege a ground constituting legal basis for the motion [or if the] sworn allegations of fact do not as a matter of law support the ground alleged” (CPL 710.60[3][a], [b]). “[T]he sufficiency of [the] defendant's factual allegations should be evaluated by (1) the face of the pleadings, (2) assessed in conjunction with the context of the motion, and (3) defendant's access to information” (People v. Mendoza,82 N.Y.2d 415, 426, 604 N.Y.S.2d 922, 624 N.E.2d 1017 [1993]; see People v. Atkinson,111 A.D.3d 1061, 1063, 975 N.Y.S.2d 227 [2013]; People v. Vanness,106 A.D.3d 1265, 1265–1266, 965 N.Y.S.2d 227 [2013], lv. denied22 N.Y.3d 1044, 981 N.Y.S.2d 378, 4 N.E.3d 390 [2013]).

Here, defendant made his motion for a Mapphearing prior to the jury trial, but after he had received the indictment and a witness list indicating that Tedeschi would be testifying. Notwithstanding this knowledge, his motion did not include any factual allegations to support his claim that the police lacked probable cause to stop him as he was walking down the street. Notably, in his motion, defendant did not allege that he had a knife when he was subsequently searched. Instead, he relied on certain discrepancies between the description the police had been given and his appearance. In this context, we find that County Court properly decided defendant's motion without a hearing (seeCPL 710.60[3][b]; People v. Mendoza,82 N.Y.2d at 426, 604 N.Y.S.2d 922, 624 N.E.2d 1017; People v. Vanness,106 A.D.3d at 1265–1266, 965 N.Y.S.2d 227). Moreover, we discern no error in the court's refusal to suppress evidence of the knife. “Where a police officer reasonably suspects ‘that a particular person has committed ... a felony or misdemeanor, the CPL authorizes a forcible stop and...