People v. Pettigrew

• Decision Date: 10 May 2018
• Docket Number: 108224
• Citation: 161 A.D.3d 1306,77 N.Y.S.3d 553
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Alfonso PETTIGREW, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

161 A.D.3d 1306

77 N.Y.S.3d 553

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,

v.Alfonso PETTIGREW, Appellant.

108224

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

Calendar Date: March 30, 2018

Decided and Entered: May 10, 2018

Linda B. Johnson, East Greenbush, for appellant.

Joel E. Abelove, District Attorney, Troy (Kathryn M. Moryl of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Clark, J.P., Mulvey, Aarons and Rumsey, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Rumsey, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Rennselaer County (Ceresia, J.), rendered September 4, 2015, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (four counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree and criminal sale of a firearm in the third degree (three counts).

In July 2014, a confidential informant (hereinafter CI) informed police that firearms were being transported from Georgia for unlawful sale in New York by an organization controlled by "Kenneth." After the police confirmed that the address and telephone number furnished by the CI belonged to Kenneth Carson, a controlled telephone call was made between the CI and Carson during which Carson agreed to send firearms to New York by courier for sale to the CI. In additional controlled calls made on August 1, 2014, the CI and defendant made arrangements to meet and conclude the transaction. Police established surveillance at the agreed meeting location and a person fitting the description of defendant that had been furnished by the CI arrived by taxi. Upon his arrival, defendant was removed from the taxi and arrested. Police then immediately removed defendant's backpack from the taxi and, following a warrantless search, recovered a loaded revolver, a loaded semiautomatic pistol and an additional handgun. Defendant was charged by indictment with four counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, one count of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree and three counts of criminal sale of a firearm in the third degree.

Defendant was represented by a member of the Public Defender's Office (hereinafter the Public Defender). Following a hearing that was held in February 2015, County Court denied defendant's motion to suppress the firearms, finding, among other things, that the warrantless search of the backpack and seizure of the firearms were proper. In March 2015, the Public Defender informed County Court that it had a conflict of interest based on its previous representation of the CI, whom the People anticipated calling as a witness at trial. As a result, the court assigned an attorney from the Conflict Defender's Office to represent defendant. Thereafter, defendant pleaded guilty to all counts of the indictment and was sentenced, as agreed, to an aggregate prison term of six years to be followed by postrelease supervision of five years. Defendant, who did not waive his right to appeal, now appeals.

Defendant first argues that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel by the Public Defender's preexisting conflict of interest, which was not disclosed until after the suppression hearing was held, and, therefore, that his guilty plea was not knowing, voluntary and intelligent. This claim was not preserved for our review because defendant did not make a postallocution motion to withdraw his plea, and "the narrow exception to the preservation requirement is inapplicable as defendant did not make any statements during the plea colloquy that cast doubt upon his guilt" ( People v. Pabon, 157 A.D.3d 1057, 1057, 69 N.Y.S.3d 192 [2018], lv denied 31 N.Y.3d 986, 77 N.Y.S.3d 663, 102 N.E.3d 440, 2018 WL 1726151 [Mar. 30, 2018] ; see People v. Toledo, 144 A.D.3d 1332, 1333, 40 N.Y.S.3d 680 [2016], lv denied 29 N.Y.3d 1001, 57 N.Y.S.3d 723, 29 N.Y.3d 1001 [2017] ).

Defendant next challenges the denial of his suppression motion, asserting that the police did not have probable cause to arrest him and, further, that the warrantless search of his backpack was improper. Police may legally stop a vehicle and detain the vehicle's occupants "if they have reasonable suspicion that a defendant has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime" ( People v. Cook, 134 A.D.3d 1241, 1243, 20 N.Y.S.3d 744 [2015] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted], lv denied 26 N.Y.3d 1143, 32 N.Y.S.3d 57, 51 N.E.3d 568 [2016] ). "A tip from a [CI] may provide the requisite level of suspicion if the People demonstrate the [CI's] reliability and the basis of his or her knowledge" ( id. [internal quotation marks and citation omitted] ). The reliability of a CI may be established by proof that the CI has previously provided the police with accurate information (see People v. Robinson, 72 A.D.3d 1277, 1278, 898 N.Y.S.2d 365 [2010], lv denied 15 N.Y.3d 809, 908 N.Y.S.2d 169, 934 N.E.2d 903 [2010] ), by independent corroboration of the details provided by the CI (see People v. Porter, 101 A.D.3d 44, 47–48, 952 N.Y.S.2d 678 [2012], lvs denied 20 N.Y.3d 1064, 1065, 962 N.Y.S.2d 615, 661, 985 N.E.2d 925, 926 [2013] ) or when the details provided by the CI are confirmed by police observation (see People v. Cook, 134 A.D.3d at 1243, 20 N.Y.S.3d 744; People v. Wolfe, 103 A.D.3d 1031, 1033, 962 N.Y.S.2d 403 [2013], lv denied 21 N.Y.3d 1021, 971 N.Y.S.2d 503, 994 N.E.2d 399 [2013] ).

At the suppression hearing, Robert Bascoe, an investigator with the Drug Enforcement Agency, testified that the CI had previously provided him with accurate information that resulted in an arrest. Bascoe further testified that after the CI told him that he knew that an individual named Kenneth was transporting firearms from Georgia for sale in New York, Drug Enforcement Agency investigators were able to independently confirm that...