People v. Shire
| Decision Date | 01 October 2010 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Sharmarke SHIRE, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
77 A.D.3d 1358
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Sharmarke SHIRE, Defendant-Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Oct. 1, 2010.
The Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc., Buffalo (Kristin M. Preve of Counsel), for Defendant-Appellant.
Frank A. Sedita, III, District Attorney, Buffalo (Brian P. Dassero of Counsel), for Respondent.
PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., MARTOCHE, SMITH, FAHEY, AND GREEN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of two counts each of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16[1], [12] ) and criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree (§ 220.50[1], [2] ). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the admission of testimony of a police detective on two occasions that defendant possessed the cocaine with the intent to sell it invaded the province of the jury. With respect to the first occasion, defendant objected to the testimony on a different ground from that raised herein ( see People v. Huebert, 30 A.D.3d 1018, 815 N.Y.S.2d 851, lv. denied 7 N.Y.3d 813, 822 N.Y.S.2d 488, 855 N.E.2d 804; see generally People v. Dawson, 50 N.Y.2d 311, 324, 428 N.Y.S.2d 914, 406 N.E.2d 771) and, with respect to the second occasion, defendant made only a general objection to the testimony. "A party's failure to specify the basis for [his or her] general objection renders [the] argument unpreserved for [our] review" ( People v. Everson, 100 N.Y.2d 609, 767 N.Y.S.2d 389, 799 N.E.2d 613; see People v. Tevaha, 84 N.Y.2d 879, 880-881, 620 N.Y.S.2d 786, 644 N.E.2d 1342). In any event, even assuming, arguendo, that the court erred in admitting the testimony on both occasions, we conclude that any error is harmless ( see People v. Ruffins, 31 A.D.3d 1180, 817 N.Y.S.2d 826; People v. Russell, 2 A.D.3d 1455, 1457, 770 N.Y.S.2d 252, lv. denied 2 N.Y.3d 745, 778 N.Y.S.2d 471, 810 N.E.2d 924).
Defendant further contends that the search warrant for the apartment in question was not supported by probable cause. It is, however, "defendant's burden to establish, in the first instance, standing to challenge the search warrant" ( People v. McCall, 51 A.D.3d 822, 822, 860 N.Y.S.2d 539, lv. denied 11 N.Y.3d 856, 872 N.Y.S.2d 79, 900 N.E.2d 562). Inasmuch as defendant failed to demonstrate any legitimate expectation of privacy in the apartment, he has no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Graham
...to testify regarding his interpretation of the slang used in the messages is unpreserved for our review (see People v. Shire, 77 A.D.3d 1358, 1359, 908 N.Y.S.2d 305 [4th Dept. 2010], lv denied 15 N.Y.3d 955, 917 N.Y.S.2d 115, 942 N.E.2d 326 [2010] ) and, in any event, is without merit (see ......
-
People v. Rivera
...to demonstrate any legitimate expectation of privacy therein and thus has no standing to challenge the search ( see People v. Shire, 77 A.D.3d 1358, 1359–1360, 908 N.Y.S.2d 305, lv. denied 15 N.Y.3d 955, 917 N.Y.S.2d 115, 942 N.E.2d 326). It is undisputed that defendant did not own the vehi......
-
People v. Trinidad
...42 A.D.3d 228, 236–237, 837 N.Y.S.2d 101,lv. denied9 N.Y.3d 960, 848 N.Y.S.2d 29, 878 N.E.2d 613;see generally People v. Shire, 77 A.D.3d 1358, 1359, 908 N.Y.S.2d 305,lv. denied15 N.Y.3d 955, 917 N.Y.S.2d 115, 942 N.E.2d 326). In any event, the court did not abuse its discretion in admittin......
-
People v. Gray
...we agree with County Court that defendant lacked standing to challenge the seizure of those items (see 57 N.Y.S.3d 564 People v. Shire, 77 A.D.3d 1358, 1359–1360, 908 N.Y.S.2d 305 [2010], lv. denied 15 N.Y.3d 955, 917 N.Y.S.2d 115, 942 N.E.2d 326 [2010] ; People v. Gonzalez, 45 A.D.3d 696, ......