People v. Woodard

• Decision Date: 24 November 2020
• Docket Number: 12071,Case No. 2019-3144,Ind. No. 1299/17
• Citation: 188 A.D.3d 613,132 N.Y.S.3d 754 (Mem)
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Leonard WOODARD, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

188 A.D.3d 613

132 N.Y.S.3d 754 (Mem)

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,

v.Leonard WOODARD, Defendant–Appellant.

12071

Ind. No. 1299/17

Case No. 2019-3144

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

ENTERED: November 24, 2020

Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Jody Ratner of counsel), for appellant.

Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Philip Vyse Tisne of counsel), for respondent.

Renwick, J.P., Gesmer, Gonza´lez, Scarpulla, JJ.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Abraham L. Clott, J.), rendered February 15, 2018, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony drug offender previously convicted of a prior violent felony, to a term of six years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of reducing the term of postrelease supervision from three years to two years, and otherwise affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant's suppression motion. There is no basis for disturbing the court's credibility determinations. During a lawful automobile stop, an officer lawfully searched defendant under the automobile exception, based on the officer's detection of a marijuana smell inside the vehicle (see People v. Valette, 88 A.D.3d 461, 461, 931 N.Y.S.2d 6 [1st Dept. 2011], lv denied 18 N.Y.3d 887, 939 N.Y.S.2d 757, 963 N.E.2d 134 [2012] ).

"Although the officer did not specifically testify as to his experience and training regarding marijuana, his general police experience and training permitted the inference that he could identify marijuana" (see People v. Tsouristakis, 82 A.D.3d 612, 613, 920 N.Y.S.2d 28 [1st Dept. 2011], lv denied 17 N.Y.3d 810, 929 N.Y.S.2d 570, 953 N.E.2d 808 [2011] ).

We find the sentence excessive to the extent indicated.