People v. Jackson
| Decision Date | 12 September 1994 |
| Citation | 207 A.D.2d 805,616 N.Y.S.2d 530 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Hector JACKSON, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Philip L. Weinstein, New York City (Jonathan Garelick and Frank Loss, of counsel), for appellant.
Charles J. Hynes, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Roseann B. MacKechnie, Leonard Joblove, Joyce Slevin, and Jodi A. Catalano, of counsel), for respondent.
Before BALLETTA, J.P., and MILLER, LAWRENCE and GOLDSTEIN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (DeLury, J.), rendered June 10, 1991, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's argument, the People may raise on appeal the issue of his standing, or lack thereof, to challenge the police entry into the building in which he and his codefendants were found with drugs, cash and a weapon, since it was the defendant's burden, in the first instance, to establish that he had standing (see, People v. Jones, 182 A.D.2d 1066, 582 N.Y.S.2d 868; People v. Sanchez-Reyes, 172 A.D.2d 1034, 569 N.Y.S.2d 539; People v. Vasquez, 97 A.D.2d 524, 467 N.Y.S.2d 892; CPL 710.60). Moreover, since the criminal possession charges were not "rooted solely in a statutory presumption attributing possession to [the] defendant" (see, People v. Tejeda, 81 N.Y.2d 861, 863, 597 N.Y.S.2d 626, 613 N.E.2d 532 [emphasis in original], the hearing Court erred in conferring automatic standing on him. Rather, the defendant was required to establish that he had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the premises searched (see, People v. Tejeda, supra; People v. Wesley, 73 N.Y.2d 351, 540 N.Y.S.2d 757, 538 N.E.2d 76). Since the defendant had no connection whatsoever with the building in which he was found and, therefore, no legitimate expectation of privacy in those premises, he had no standing to challenge the police entry and search (see, People v. Melendez, 160 A.D.2d 739, 553 N.Y.S.2d 808; People v. Castellar, 159 A.D.2d 312, 552 N.Y.S.2d 592).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. King
...could have raised the issue for the first time on appeal (see, People v. Andrews, 216 A.D.2d 571, 629 N.Y.S.2d 442; People v. Jackson, 207 A.D.2d 805, 806, 616 N.Y.S.2d 530). However, the fact that the People failed to raise the issue even on appeal is not dispositive. In fact, "[e]ven had ......
-
People v. Guo Yan Zheng
...in the first instance, to establish that he had standing (see, People v. Poree, 240 A.D.2d 597, 661 N.Y.S.2d 12; People v. Jackson, 207 A.D.2d 805, 616 N.Y.S.2d 530). Furthermore, the Supreme Court correctly found the defendant's confession to be admissible. The defendant knowingly, volunta......
-
People v. Poree
...the People may raise the issue of the defendant's lack of standing as an alternative ground for affirmance (see, People v. Jackson, 207 A.D.2d 805, 616 N.Y.S.2d 530; see also, People v. Abreu, 239 A.D.2d 424, 657 N.Y.S.2d In any event, the record supports the conclusion that the officer, pr......
-
People v. Andrews
...the police entry since it was the defendant's burden, in the first instance, to establish that he had standing (see, People v. Jackson, 207 A.D.2d 805, 616 N.Y.S.2d 530; People v. Rivera, 206 A.D.2d 832, 615 N.Y.S.2d 196; People v. Banks, 202 A.D.2d 902, 609 N.Y.S.2d 420, revd on other grou......