People v. Watkins
| Docket Number | 2019-05489,Ind. No. 15/18 |
| Decision Date | 01 November 2023 |
| Citation | 2023 NY Slip Op 05523 |
| Parties | The People of the State of New York, respondent, v. Richard Watkins, appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (Joshua M. Levine of counsel) for appellant.
Michael E. McMahon, District Attorney, Staten Island, NY (Morrie I. Kleinbart and Timothy Pezzoli of counsel), for respondent.
VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P. LARA J. GENOVESI LILLIAN WAN JANICE A. TAYLOR, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Mario F. Mattei, J.), rendered May 2, 2019, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree, criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree (two counts), criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, criminal sale of a firearm in the third degree, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and sentencing him, as a second felony drug offender previously convicted of a violent felony, to a determinate term of imprisonment of 18 years plus 5 years of postrelease supervision on the conviction of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree, determinate terms of imprisonment of 8 years plus 5 years of postrelease supervision on the convictions of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree, determinate terms of imprisonment of 6 years plus 3 years of postrelease supervision on the convictions of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, a determinate term of imprisonment of 10 years plus 5 years of postrelease supervision on the conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, a determinate term of imprisonment of 6 years plus 5 years of postrelease supervision on the conviction of criminal sale of a firearm in the third degree, and a determinate term of imprisonment of 3½ years of plus 1½ years of postrelease supervision on the conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, with the sentences imposed on the convictions of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree, criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree under count 7 of the indictment, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree to run consecutively to one another and concurrently with all of the other sentences, and with all of the other sentences to run concurrently with each other. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Alexander Jeong, J.), of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.
ORDERED that the judgment is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by providing that all of the sentences imposed shall run concurrently with each other; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree is the result of a 2017 encounter in which a police officer ordered the defendant to exit a vehicle and, eventually, recovered cocaine that had been on the defendant's person at the time of the directive. The defendant contends that the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress the cocaine as the fruit of unlawful police action because the officer lacked the reasonable suspicion required to direct him to exit the vehicle. "Where a police officer has reasonable suspicion that a particular person was...
To continue reading
Request your trial