People v. Grimes

• Decision Date: 09 July 2021
• Docket Number: 1210 KA 18-00535
• Citation: 2021 NY Slip Op 04326
• Parties: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, v. JAKIM GRIMES, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
• Court: New York Supreme Court

2021 NY Slip Op 04326

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,
v.
JAKIM GRIMES, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

No. 1210 KA 18-00535

Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

July 9, 2021

LINDA M. CAMPBELL, SYRACUSE, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (BRADLEY W. OASTLER OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

PRESENT: CARNI, J.P., LINDLEY, CURRAN, WINSLOW, AND BANNISTER, JJ.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (John J. Brunetti, A.J.), rendered October 19, 2017. The appeal was held by this Court by order entered March 13, 2020, decision was reserved and the matter was remitted to Supreme Court, Onondaga County, for further proceedings (181 A.D.3d 1251 [4th Dept 2020]). The proceedings were held and completed (Gordon J. Cuffy, A.J.).

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a plea of guilty of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16 [12]). We previously held this case, reserved decision, and remitted the matter to Supreme Court for a determination whether the arresting officer possessed the requisite justification to conduct the frisk of defendant after the lawful stop of the vehicle defendant was driving.

Upon remittal, a substitute Acting Justice replaced the prior Acting Justice, who had retired. The new Acting Justice did not hold a hearing; instead, he determined that his role was "to review the transcripts... and the findings of fact and make... a legal determination on the validity of... the frisk and whether there [were] any exclusionary rule exceptions that appl[ied]." We conclude that the substitute Acting Justice properly found the frisk to be lawful.

Contrary to defendant's contention, the substitute Acting Justice did not violate Judiciary Law § 21 in rendering his decision. That statute prohibits a trial level judge from deciding or taking part in decisions or questions, argued orally in court, when the judge "was not present and sitting therein as a judge." It does not, however, "bar a substitute judge from deciding a question of law presented in a motion argued orally before another judge so long as a transcript or recording of the prior argument is available for review, and 'the substitute indicates on the record the requisite familiarity with the proceedings and no undue prejudice occurs to the defendant or the People'" (People v Hampton, 21 N.Y.3d 277, 279 [2013]). Here, the substitute Acting Justice followed the procedure outlined in Hampton and made a legal determination based on the facts presented to the original Acting Justice (see People v Massey, 173 A.D.3d 1801, 1804 [4th Dept 2019]; see generally Hampton, 21 N.Y.3d at 285).

We further conclude that the court properly determined that the officer had "knowledge of some fact or circumstance that support[ed] a reasonable suspicion that [defendant was] armed or pose[d] a threat to safety" (People v Batista, 88 N.Y.2d 650, 654 [1996]; see People v Daniels, 103 A.D.3d 1204, 1204 [4th Dept 2013], lv denied 22 N.Y.3d 1137 [2014]; People v Goodson, 85 A.D.3d 1569, 1570 [4th Dept 2011], lv denied 17 N.Y.3d 953 [2011]). Defendant's vehicle stopped at a suspected drug house, and an...