PEOPLE v. SNAGG (2006)

 Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree (Penal Law § 220.21 [former (1) ] ) and conspiracy in the second degree (§ 105.15).   Supreme Court properly denied suppression of the cocaine.   The arrest of defendant and the seizure of the cocaine discarded by him during his attempted flight from police were supported by probable cause to believe that defendant was engaged in a criminal conspiracy to distribute cocaine (see People v. Harper, 236 A.D.2d 822, 823, 653 N.Y.S.2d 771, lv. denied 89 N.Y.2d 1094, 660 N.Y.S.2d 388, 682 N.E.2d 989;  see generally People v. Carrasquillo, 54 N.Y.2d 248, 254, 445 N.Y.S.2d 97, 429 N.E.2d 775).   Moreover, under the circumstances of this case, in which probable cause for the arrest of defendant was made out on papers alone, viz., the applications for the eavesdropping warrants, and in which the suppression hearing conducted by the court prior to the retrial appears to have been entirely superfluous (cf. People v. Dunn, 155 A.D.2d 75, 80, 553 N.Y.S.2d 257, affd. 77 N.Y.2d 19, 563 N.Y.S.2d 388, 564 N.E.2d 1054, cert. denied 501 U.S. 1219, 111 S.Ct. 2830, 115 L.Ed.2d 1000;  People v. Glen, 30 N.Y.2d 252, 262, 331 N.Y.S.2d 656, 282 N.E.2d 614, cert. denied sub nom. Baker v. New York, 409 U.S. 849, 93 S.Ct. 58, 34 L.Ed.2d 91;  People v. Solimine, 18 N.Y.2d 477, 480, 276 N.Y.S.2d 882, 223 N.E.2d 341, rearg. denied 21 N.Y.2d 1041, 291 N.Y.S.2d 1025, 238 N.E.2d 507), we conclude that any error in the manner in which the court conducted the suppression hearing could not have prejudiced defendant.

 Contrary to defendant's contention, “[a]n indictment for conspiracy need not allege every overt act” committed by defendant, and “[i]f the indictment provides sufficient detail about the scope and nature of the conspiracy and the major overt acts committed in furtherance of it, then evidence may be offered at trial of related overt acts” (People v. Ribowsky, 77 N.Y.2d 284, 292-293, 567 N.Y.S.2d 392, 568 N.E.2d 1197).   Moreover, evidence of those overt acts, even though they amount to uncharged crimes, may be adduced at defendant's trial for conspiracy without violating the Molineux rule (see People v. Morales, 309 A.D.2d 1065, 765 N.Y.S.2d 918, lv. denied 1 N.Y.3d 576, 775 N.Y.S.2d 793, 807 N.E.2d 906, citing Ribowsky, 77 N.Y.2d at 292-293, 567 N.Y.S.2d 392, 568 N.E.2d 1197;  see also People v. McKnight, 281 A.D.2d 293, 722 N.Y.S.2d 152, lv. denied 96 N.Y.2d 865, 730 N.Y.S.2d 39, 754 N.E.2d 1122, 96 N.Y.2d 904, 730 N.Y.S.2d 802, 756 N.E.2d 90;  People v. Jimenez, 281 A.D.2d 176, 722 N.Y.S.2d 4, lv. denied 96 N.Y.2d 830, 729 N.Y.S.2d 451, 754 N.E.2d 211).   The Deputy Attorney General had statutory authority to obtain the wiretapping and search warrants and to prosecute this case in Onondaga County (see Executive Law § 70-a [1], [4], [7];  see also CPL 700.05[5];  People v. Vespucci, 144 A.D.2d 48, 51, 55-56, 536 N.Y.S.2d 487, affd. 75 N.Y.2d 434, 437-438, 554 N.Y.S.2d 417, 553 N.E.2d 965;  People v. Leale, 151 A.D.2d 611, 612-613, 542 N.Y.S.2d 698, lv. denied 75 N.Y.2d 869, 553 N.Y.S.2d 301, 552 N.E.2d 880, 76 N.Y.2d 738, 558 N.Y.S.2d 900, 557 N.E.2d 1196).

In light of defendant's subsequent resentencing, we do not consider the challenge to the severity of the original sentence.   We have considered defendant's other contentions and conclude that they are without merit.

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal from the judgment insofar as it imposed sentence be and the same hereby is unanimously dismissed (see People v. Haywood, 203 A.D.2d 966, 612 N.Y.S.2d 1016, lv. denied 83 N.Y.2d 967, 616 N.Y.S.2d 20, 639 N.E.2d 760) and the judgment is affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: