PEOPLE v. KEMP (2000)

Defendant was convicted of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (Penal Law § 265.02) and two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 265.01), stemming from two incidents taking place at his girlfriend's house on January 30, 1998, and February 18, 1998, and aggravated harassment in the second degree (Penal Law § 240.30), stemming from alleged death threats by defendant against five people on or about February 24, 1998.

 Defendant contends that County Court erred in ruling that he lacked standing to challenge the seizure of weapons from his girlfriend's house.   Even assuming that defendant had standing based on an expectation of privacy in the premises owned by his girlfriend (see, People v. Ortiz, 83 N.Y.2d 840, 842, 611 N.Y.S.2d 500, 633 N.E.2d 1104), we conclude that the voluntary consent of defendant's girlfriend to a search of the premises and removal of the guns rendered the warrantless search valid (see, People v. Williams, 267 A.D.2d 772, 700 N.Y.S.2d 512, lv. denied 94 N.Y.2d 886, 705 N.Y.S.2d 19, 726 N.E.2d 496;  People v. Cooper, 258 A.D.2d 891, 685 N.Y.S.2d 522, lv. denied 93 N.Y.2d 968, 695 N.Y.S.2d 54, 716 N.E.2d 1099).   We further reject the contention of defendant that the exemption set forth in Penal Law § 265.20(a)(5) applies to him;  defendant has never been issued a certificate of good conduct pursuant to Correction Law § 703-b.   Because there was legally sufficient evidence at trial to support defendant's conviction under count one of the indictment, we do not address defendant's contention that count one was not supported by legally sufficient evidence before the Grand Jury (see, CPL 210.30[6] ).   The record establishes that defendant received meaningful representation (see, People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 712-713, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584).   We have examined defendant's remaining contentions and conclude that they are lacking in merit.

Judgment unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: