People v. Uraca
| Decision Date | 15 July 1993 |
| Citation | 195 A.D.2d 377,600 N.Y.S.2d 458 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Luis URACA, a/k/a Luis Urraca, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Before MURPHY, P.J., and CARRO, WALLACH, KASSAL and NARDELLI, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Joseph Cerbone, J.), rendered December 5, 1991, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him as a second felony offender to a term of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.
We defer to the findings of the hearing court that police, during the early morning hours, observed the butt of a gun protruding from co-defendant's clothing. The officers pursued co-defendant through, and out of, an apartment in which defendant also had been present. During defendant's own flight, he discarded a bag which was found to contain rock cocaine. During the flight, co-defendant discarded his gun. Defendant failed to adduce any evidence of a personal connection with the apartment sufficient to rise to the level of an expectation of privacy therein (see, People v. Plower, 176 A.D.2d 214, 215, 574 N.Y.S.2d 337, lv. denied, 79 N.Y.2d 830, 580 N.Y.S.2d 211, 588 N.E.2d 109). We find no basis to disturb the hearing court's findings of fact. Since defendant has failed to demonstrate any connection with the apartment beyond that of his mere transient presence, he has no standing to challenge the warrantless entry of police (People v. Rodriguez, 69 N.Y.2d 159, 513 N.Y.S.2d 75, 505 N.E.2d 586; People v. Ortiz, 190 A.D.2d 580, 593 N.Y.S.2d 806, lv. granted, 81 N.Y.2d 895, 597 N.Y.S.2d 957, 613 N.E.2d 989).
Defendant has failed to preserve his claim that the court's reasonable doubt instruction shifted the burden of proof (People v. Thomas, 50 N.Y.2d 467, 429 N.Y.S.2d 584, 407 N.E.2d 430), and we decline to review in the interest of justice. If we were to review, we would conclude, under the authority of People v. Antommarchi, 80 N.Y.2d 247, 251-252, 590 N.Y.S.2d 33, 604 N.E.2d 95, that the court did not err by charging the jury that
We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mason v. Schriver
...v. Antommarchi, 80 N.Y.2d 247, 252, 590 N.Y.S.2d 33, 36, 604 N.E.2d 95 (1992) (emphasis added); see also, e.g., People v. Uraca, 195 A.D.2d 377, 600 N.Y.S.2d 458 (1993) (not error to charge the jury that a reasonable doubt "is a doubt for which a juror could give a reason, if he or she were......
-
People v. Martinez
...reasonable doubt is not preserved for our review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Saunders, 283 A.D.2d 523, lv denied 96 N.Y.2d 924; People v Uraca, 195 A.D.2d 377, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 728). In any event, that contention is without merit (see People v Antommarchi, 80 N.Y.2d 247, 251-252, rearg......
-
People v. Marinelli
...454 N.E.2d 932; People v. Thomas, 210 A.D.2d 10, 618 N.Y.S.2d 805; People v. Marero, 208 A.D.2d 769, 617 N.Y.S.2d 780; People v. Uraca, 195 A.D.2d 377, 600 N.Y.S.2d 458) and, in any event, is without merit (see, People v. Melendez, 205 A.D.2d 392, 613 N.Y.S.2d Moreover, upon the exercise of......
-
People v. Laguer
...v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932; People v. Thomas, 210 A.D.2d 10, 618 N.Y.S.2d 805; People v. Uraca, 195 A.D.2d 377, 600 N.Y.S.2d 458). The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review and we decline to reach them in the exercise of ......