People v. Williams

• Decision Date: 08 December 2016
• Citation: 2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 08257,145 A.D.3d 1188,43 N.Y.S.3d 190
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Victor WILLIAMS, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

145 A.D.3d 1188

43 N.Y.S.3d 190

2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 08257

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,

v.Victor WILLIAMS, Appellant.

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

Dec. 8, 2016.

Bruce Evans Knoll, Albany, for appellant.

P. David Soares, District Attorney, Albany (Brittany L. Grome of counsel), for respondent.

Before: PETERS, P.J., GARRY, DEVINE, CLARK and AARONS, JJ.

CLARK, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County (Herrick, J.), rendered May 6, 2014, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts) and the violation of unlawful possession of marihuana.

On June 3, 2013, two deputies with the Albany County Sheriff's Department stopped a taxi cab in which defendant was a passenger for traveling in excess of the posted speed limit. Upon approaching the vehicle and asking the driver and defendant to roll down their respective windows, the deputies detected the odor of marihuana and directed defendant to step out of the vehicle. During or immediately after a search of his person, which resulted in the seizure of several cell phones, 24.9 grams of crack cocaine that was individually packaged in plastic tie-off bags and a quantity of marihuana, defendant stated that "the taxi driver had nothing to do with it." Defendant was subsequently arrested and indicted on two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and one count of unlawful possession of marihuana. Following defendant's unsuccessful motion to suppress the physical evidence discovered on his person, as well as his statement, defendant proceeded to trial, during which he pleaded guilty as charged. Defendant was thereafter sentenced to concurrent prison terms of 6 ½ years, followed by three years of postrelease supervision, on each conviction for criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and time served for his conviction for unlawful possession of marihuana. Defendant appeals.

We affirm. A police officer may lawfully initiate a traffic stop where there is probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has been committed (see People v. Guthrie, 25 N.Y.3d 130, 133, 8 N.Y.S.3d 237, 30 N.E.3d 880 [2015] ; People v. Robinson, 97 N.Y.2d 341, 349, 741 N.Y.S.2d 147, 767 N.E.2d 638 [2001] ; People v. Issac, 107 A.D.3d 1055, 1057, 968 N.Y.S.2d 631 [2013] ), and probable cause exists when an officer actually observes the commission of a traffic violation (see People v. Rasul, 121 A.D.3d 1413, 1415, 995 N.Y.S.2d 380 [2014] ; People v. Portelli, 116 A.D.3d 1163, 1164, 983 N.Y.S.2d 355 [2014] ; People v. Hawkins, 45 A.D.3d 989, 991, 845 N.Y.S.2d 171 [2007], lv. denied 9 N.Y.3d 1034, 852 N.Y.S.2d 20, 881 N.E.2d 1207 [2008] ). Here, the deputy that initiated the traffic stop testified that, while his car was stationary, he visually estimated that the taxi cab was traveling at a speed of 45 miles per hour, 15 miles per hour in excess of the posted speed limit, and that he confirmed this speed through the use of rear radar. He also stated that he used front radar, which registered the vehicle's speed at 47 miles per hour. Inasmuch as the deputy's testimony established that he was trained and certified to visually estimate the speed of a moving vehicle within five miles per hour of the actual speed and his estimation was confirmed by both front and rear radar, probable cause existed to support the stop of the taxi cab in which defendant was a passenger (see People v. Ponzo, 111 A.D.3d 1347, 1347, 975 N.Y.S.2d 274 [2013] ; People v. McLean, 99 A.D.3d 1111, 1112, 952 N.Y.S.2d 672 [2012], lv. denied 20 N.Y.3d 1013, 960 N.Y.S.2d 356, 984 N.E.2d 331 [2013] ; People v. White, 40 A.D.3d 535, 536, 836 N.Y.S.2d 601 [2007], lv. denied 9 N.Y.3d 883, 842 N.Y.S.2d 795, 874 N.E.2d 762 [2007] ; People v. Donaldson, 35 A.D.3d 1242, 1242–1243, 826 N.Y.S.2d 540 [2006], lv. denied 8 N.Y.3d 984, 838 N.Y.S.2d 487, 869 N.E.2d 663 [2007] ).

As for the search of defendant, this Court has long held that "[t]he odor of marihuana emanating from a vehicle, when detected by an officer qualified by training and experience to recognize it, is sufficient to constitute probable cause to search a vehicle and its occupants" (People v. Cuffie, 109 A.D.3d 1200, 1201, 972 N.Y.S.2d 383 [2013] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted], lv. denied 22 N.Y.3d 1087, 981 N.Y.S.2d 673, 4 N.E.3d 975 [2014] ; see People v. Francois, 138 A.D.3d 1165, 1166, 30 N.Y.S.3d 349 [2016] ; People v. Rasul, 121 A.D.3d at 1415–1416, 995 N.Y.S.2d 380 ; People v. Gaines, 57 A.D.3d 1120, 1121, 869 N.Y.S.2d 646 [2008] ; People v. Pierre, 8 A.D.3d 904, 905, 780 N.Y.S.2d 389 [2004], lv denied 3 N.Y.3d 710, 785 N.Y.S.2d 38, 818 N.E.2d 680 [2004] ; People v. Chestnut, 43 A.D.2d 260, 261, 351 N.Y.S.2d 26 [1974], affd. 36 N.Y.2d 971, 373 N.Y.S.2d 564, 335 N.E.2d 865 [1975] ), and we decline defendant's invitation to depart from this precedent. Here, the deputies involved in the lawful traffic stop testified that they approached the vehicle from opposite sides, requested that defendant and the driver roll down their respective windows and each immediately detected an odor of marihuana emanating from within the vehicle and from defendant's person once he exited the vehicle. Contrary to defendant's contention, the record supports the conclusion that the deputies were sufficiently qualified to identify the odor of marihuana, as they separately testified that they received drug training, which included the identification of marihuana visually and by smell, and had extensive on-the-job experience recognizing the odor of marihuana. Thus, because the requisite probable cause existed for the search, County Court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress the tangible evidence seized from his person (see People v. Rasul, 121 A.D.3d at 1416, 995 N.Y.S.2d 380 ; People v. Pierre, 8 A.D.3d at 906, 780 N.Y.S.2d 389 ; People v. Chestnut, 43 A.D.2d at 261–262, 351 N.Y.S.2d 26 ).

Defendant also argues that his guilty plea was not knowing, voluntary and intelligent because County Court failed to apprise him of the trial-related rights that he waived by pleading guilty (see Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 243, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 [1969] ). However, defendant failed to preserve this argument by making a postallocution motion to withdraw his plea in the several weeks following his guilty plea and leading up to sentencing (see People v. Conceicao, 26 N.Y.3d 375, 382, 23 N.Y.S.3d 124, 44 N.E.3d 199 [2015] ; People v. Sommers, 140 A.D.3d 1537, 1538, 33 N.Y.S.3d 789 [2016], lv. denied 28 N.Y.3d 974, 43 N.Y.S.3d 262, 66 N.E.3d 8 [2016] ; People v. Walker, 135 A.D.3d 1244, 1245, 23 N.Y.S.3d 485 [2016] ), and a review of the plea colloquy demonstrates that he did not make any statements that cast doubt upon his guilt or called into question the voluntariness of his plea so as to trigger the narrow exception to the preservation rule (see People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 [1988] ; People v. White, 139 A.D.3d 1260, 1260, 31 N.Y.S.3d 669 [2016] ; People v. Walker, 135 A.D.3d at 1245, 23 N.Y.S.3d 485). In any event, the record as a whole, including the circumstance that defendant pleaded guilty during trial, affirmatively demonstrates that defendant knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his trial-related rights (see People v. Pellegrino, 26 N.Y.3d 1063, 1063, 23 N.Y.S.3d 145, 44 N.E.3d 220 [2015] ; People v. Conceicao, 26 N.Y.3d at 383–384, 23 N.Y.S.3d 124, 44 N.E.3d 199 ).

Defendant next asserts that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. However, those claims that relate to the voluntariness of defendant's plea are unpreserved due to his failure to make an appropriate postallocution motion, and those claims that are unrelated to the voluntariness of his plea are foreclosed by his guilty plea (see People v. Islam, 134 A.D.3d 1348, 1349, 21 N.Y.S.3d 648 [2015]; People v. Watkins, 121 A.D.3d 1425, 1427, 995 N.Y.S.2d 803 [2014], lv. denied 24 N.Y.3d 1124, 3 N.Y.S.3d 765, 27 N.E.3d 479 [2015] ; People v. Lohnes, 112 A.D.3d 1148, 1150, 976 N.Y.S.2d 719 [2013] ). With respect to defendant's contention that his sentence is harsh and excessive, given his prior drug-related convictions and that he received significantly less than the maximum...