People v. Williams

• Decision Date: 31 August 2022
• Docket Number: 2019-03802,Ind. No. 2454/16
• Citation: 208 A.D.3d 899,173 N.Y.S.3d 645
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Jahaad WILLIAMS, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

208 A.D.3d 899
173 N.Y.S.3d 645

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,
v.
Jahaad WILLIAMS, appellant.

2019-03802
Ind. No. 2454/16

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

Argued—January 20, 2022
August 31, 2022

173 N.Y.S.3d 647

Jonathan Rosenberg, PLLC, Brooklyn, NY, for appellant.

Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (Johnnette Traill, Nancy Fitzpatrick Talcott, and Marina Arshakyan of counsel), for respondent.

BETSY BARROS, J.P., REINALDO E. RIVERA, PAUL WOOTEN, DEBORAH A. DOWLING, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

208 A.D.3d 900

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (John Latella, J.), rendered March 4, 2019, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, unlawful possession of marihuana, operating a motor vehicle with a tinted window, failing to give a required signal, and standing or parking a vehicle in a bus stop, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Charles S. Lopresto, J.), of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

ORDERED that the appeal from so much of the judgment as convicted the defendant of unlawful possession of marihuana is dismissed as academic; and it is further,

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed insofar as reviewed.

"The defendant's conviction of unlawful possession of marihuana became a nullity by operation of law, independently of any appeal, and without requiring any action by this court, pursuant to CPL 160.50(5) (as added by L 2019, ch 131 [eff Aug. 28, 2019])" ( People v. Hay, 207 A.D.3d 748, 749, 170 N.Y.S.3d 914 [2d Dept.] [internal quotation marks and brackets omitted]). "Consequently, the appeal from so much of the judgment as convicted the defendant of unlawful possession of marihuana must be dismissed as academic" ( 207 A.D.3d at 749, 170 N.Y.S.3d 914 ).

The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence recovered from the defendant's vehicle. A vehicle may be searched without a warrant, inter alia, if there is probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains evidence of the offense for which the defendant is being arrested (see Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229, 131 S.Ct. 2419, 180 L.Ed.2d 285 ;

173 N.Y.S.3d 648

Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332, 129 S.Ct. 1710, 173 L.Ed.2d 485 ; People v. Blasich, 73 N.Y.2d 673, 543 N.Y.S.2d 40, 541 N.E.2d 40 ; People v. Singletary, 156 A.D.3d 731, 64 N.Y.S.3d 908 ; People v. Washington, 108 A.D.3d 578, 970 N.Y.S.2d 36 ). Here, a police officer possessed probable cause to stop the defendant's vehicle because he observed the defendant commit a traffic infraction by pulling into a bus stop lane without

208 A.D.3d 901

signaling (see People v. Wright, 98 N.Y.2d 657; People v. Robinson, 97 N.Y.2d 341, 741 N.Y.S.2d 147, 767 N.E.2d 638 ; People v. Burgos, 198 A.D.3d 672, 156 N.Y.S.3d 213 ; People v. Graham, 54 A.D.3d 1056, 865 N.Y.S.2d 259 ; People v. Guzman, 153 A.D.2d 320, 551 N.Y.S.2d 709 ). Upon approaching the defendant's vehicle, the officer asked the defendant to roll down the windows. When the windows were rolled down, the officer smelled a strong odor of marijuana coming from inside the vehicle and, upon looking into the window, observed what looked like loose marijuana and two glassine envelopes of heroin on the rear floor of the vehicle. The officer was justified in seizing the loose marijuana and the glassine envelopes of heroin, as they were in plain view (see People v. Alexander, 161 A.D.3d 762, 76 N.Y.S.3d 577 ; People v. Frazier, 33 A.D.3d 934, 826 N.Y.S.2d 292 ; People v. Diaz, 194 A.D.2d 688, 599 N.Y.S.2d 111 ). Furthermore, the odor of marijuana coming from the vehicle together with the officer's observations were sufficient to constitute probable cause to search the vehicle and its occupants (see People v. Garcia, 175 A.D.3d 1319, 109 N.Y.S.3d 165 ; People v. Singletary, 156 A.D.3d 731, 64 N.Y.S.3d 908 ; People v. Singleton, 139 A.D.3d 208, 29 N.Y.S.3d 358 ; People v. McCaw, 137 A.D.3d 813, 27 N.Y.S.3d 574 ). Thus, the officer rightfully opened the glove box and seized the gun found therein (see People v. Alexander, 161 A.D.3d 762, 76 N.Y.S.3d 577 ; People...