People v. Logan

• Decision Date: 28 October 2021
• Docket Number: 110202
• Citation: 198 A.D.3d 1181,156 N.Y.S.3d 511
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Anthony LOGAN, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

198 A.D.3d 1181

156 N.Y.S.3d 511

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,

v.Anthony LOGAN, Appellant.

110202

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

Calendar Date: September 9, 2021

Decided and Entered: October 28, 2021

Mark Diamond, Albany, for appellant.

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

Before: Lynch, J.P., Aarons, Pritzker, Reynolds Fitzgerald and Colangelo, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Colangelo, J. Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Coccoma, J.), rendered July 23, 2018 in Schenectady County, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, reckless endangerment in the second degree, menacing in the second degree, criminal contempt in the second degree, tampering with a witness in the fourth degree and criminal solicitation in the fourth degree.

In June 2017, police responded to a domestic disturbance call placed by the victim's father, who reported that defendant, the victim's husband, was choking the victim inside of their residence at 535 Mumford Street in the City of Schenectady, Schenectady County. The first officers responding to the scene were unable to make contact with the victim or other residents of the building. Another officer arrived at the scene and he positioned himself in the alley at the rear of the apartment building with his K–9 partner. This officer observed defendant lean his body out of a second-floor window of 535 Mumford Street and throw a black backpack into the window of 533 Mumford Street, the neighboring building. Defendant thereafter emerged onto the second-floor porch of 535 Mumford Street and, while officers were engaging with him, defendant stated several times that he had a gun. When he raised a gray colored object towards the officers, he was shot twice. Defendant was transported to the hospital. In the meantime, the backpack was recovered by an officer from inside 533 Mumford Street, and a search of it found a rifle with a sawed-off barrel and a smaller, closed bag that contained ammunition.

The following day, Peter Forth, a detective with the City of Schenectady Police Department went to the hospital with the intention of interviewing defendant but found defendant to be disoriented and declined to question him. Forth returned to the hospital the next day and, after reading defendant his Miranda rights, he questioned defendant about the incident. Prior to Mirandizing defendant, Forth obtained pedigree information from him, and defendant told Forth that he was on parole for a "weapons possession" conviction and he told Forth the name of his parole officer. At this time, defendant admitted to throwing a bag containing a half pound of marihuana out of the window but denied knowing that a gun was inside of the bag and denied having a gun.

Defendant was thereafter charged by indictment with criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts), reckless endangerment in the second degree, menacing in the second degree (two counts), unlawful imprisonment in the second degree, criminal obstruction of breathing, criminal contempt in the second degree, tampering with a witness in the fourth degree and criminal solicitation in the fourth degree (two counts). Defendant moved to suppress the evidence seized from the backpack and requested a Mapp hearing to determine the admissibility thereof. Defendant filed an amended motion seeking to suppress his statements made at the hospital. A combined Mapp/Huntley hearing was conducted, after which County Court (Teresi, J.H.O.) denied defendant's motion. Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, reckless endangerment in the second degree, two counts of menacing in the second degree, criminal contempt in the second degree, tampering with a witness in the fourth degree and criminal solicitation in the fourth degree. Defendant was thereafter sentenced to a prison term of 10 years, followed by five years of postrelease supervision, for his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and to lesser concurrent terms on the remaining convictions. Defendant appeals.

Defendant initially contends that his conviction for criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree should be reversed because he was neither charged with nor proven to have knowledge that he had a prior criminal conviction at the time that he possessed the gun. This argument amounts to a challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence as defendant maintains, in essence, that a necessary element of this crime is his knowledge that he had a prior criminal conviction at the time of the offense. Although defendant orally moved, at the close of the People's case, to dismiss the charge of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree based on the ground that there was no proof that he knowingly and voluntarily possessed a loaded gun, he did not move to dismiss said charge on the ground that he lacked knowledge of his prior criminal conviction. As defendant's legal sufficiency challenge "was not advanced via specific objection in his motion for a trial order of dismissal ... [, it] is unpreserved for our review" ( People v. Walker, 191 A.D.3d 1154, 1156, 142 N.Y.S.3d 648 [2021] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citation omitted], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 961, 147 N.Y.S.3d 518, 170 N.E.3d 392 [2021] ; see People v. Kabia, 190 A.D.3d 1105, 1106, 139 N.Y.S.3d 443 [2021] ). In any event, criminal possession of a weapon "requires only that defendant's possession be knowing" ( People v. Ford, 66 N.Y.2d 428, 440, 497 N.Y.S.2d 637, 488 N.E.2d 458 [1985] [internal citations omitted]). In this respect, a "defendant's previous conviction [is] not an element of the offense charged ... and so [does] not have to be alleged at all" ( People v. Jones, 22 N.Y.3d 53, 59, 977 N.Y.S.2d 739, 999 N.E.2d 1184 [2013] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]). Therefore, knowledge by defendant of his prior criminal conviction is not a necessary element of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.

Defendant next contends that County Court (Teresi, J.H.O.) erred in denying suppression of the gun on the ground that he lives in both buildings and therefore had an expectation of privacy in the property from where the gun was recovered. He contends that he was a beneficial owner and frequent occupant of the property and that the People did not demonstrate exigent circumstances justifying the warrantless search thereof. "A defendant seeking suppression of evidence has the burden of establishing standing by demonstrating a legitimate expectation of privacy in the premises or object searched" ( People v. Ramirez–Portoreal, 88 N.Y.2d 99, 108, 643 N.Y.S.2d 502, 666 N.E.2d 207 [1996] [citations omitted]).

The evidence demonstrated that defendant had relinquished his ownership interest in 533 Mumford Street to his uncle prior to the incident, and the record belies any claim by defendant that he established residency or lived with any consistency at 533 Mumford Street at the time of the incident. Jonathan Haigh, a police officer with the City of Schenectady Police Department, testified that the property was "unsecured," "[t]he doors were [physically] open," "it was not clean," as he observed "[c]obwebs and dust," and he "didn't see any furniture." He therefore opined that "[i]t just didn't appear that anybody had been living there." Based upon the foregoing, County Court properly found that defendant had no legitimate expectation of privacy in the property. Further, we agree with County Court's determination that defendant's actions constituted abandonment of the backpack and its contents. The suppression hearing testimony established that defendant, prior to throwing the backpack across the alley into 533 Mumford Street, repeatedly looked to make sure that the alley was clear from the officers’ view. "Having discarded the [backpack] ..., defendant abandoned any right to challenge the seizure of this evidence" ( People v. Butler, 196 A.D.3d 28, 32, 148 N.Y.S.3d 286 [2021] ; see People v. Walker, 191 A.D.3d at 1158, 142 N.Y.S.3d 648 ). We therefore find that County Court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress the gun.¹

Defendant also contends that his statement to Forth at the hospital should have been suppressed on the basis that the People failed to produce sufficient evidence that he had the capacity to understand his Miranda rights or the capacity to understand the ramifications of waiving them. "The People bear the burden of proving the voluntariness of the defendant's statements beyond a reasonable doubt, including that any custodial interrogation was preceded by the administration and defendant's knowing...