PEOPLE v. MERCER (2007)

 Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03[2] ) and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (§ 265.02[1] ).   Defendant contends that, because County Court refused to provide him with an unredacted copy of the search warrant application, the court was required to conduct a Darden hearing (People v. Darden, 34 N.Y.2d 177, 356 N.Y.S.2d 582, 313 N.E.2d 49, rearg. denied 34 N.Y.2d 995, 360 N.Y.S.2d 1027, 318 N.E.2d 613;  see generally People v. Castillo, 80 N.Y.2d 578, 582-584, 592 N.Y.S.2d 945, 607 N.E.2d 1050, cert. denied 507 U.S. 1033, 113 S.Ct. 1854, 123 L.Ed.2d 477).   We reject that contention.   “[I]nformants who previously testified before the Magistrate who issued a warrant need not be produced for a Darden hearing, since their existence and statements have already been verified” (People v. Edwards, 95 N.Y.2d 486, 493, 719 N.Y.S.2d 202, 741 N.E.2d 876, citing People v. Serrano, 93 N.Y.2d 73, 76-77, 688 N.Y.S.2d 90, 710 N.E.2d 655;  see People v. Monk, 28 A.D.3d 793, 816 N.Y.S.2d 108).   Upon our review of the unredacted search warrant application and the transcript of the confidential informant's sworn testimony before the issuing Magistrate, we agree with the court that the existence of the confidential informant was not fabricated (see Serrano, 93 N.Y.2d at 77, 688 N.Y.S.2d 90, 710 N.E.2d 655;  Darden, 34 N.Y.2d at 181-182, 356 N.Y.S.2d 582, 313 N.E.2d 49), and that the testimony of the confidential informant established probable cause to believe that drugs would be found upon a search of defendant's apartment (see People v. Perez, 298 A.D.2d 935, 936, 747 N.Y.S.2d 654, lv. denied 99 N.Y.2d 562, 754 N.Y.S.2d 215, 784 N.E.2d 88;   People v. McLaughlin, 269 A.D.2d 858, 702 N.Y.S.2d 737, lv. denied 95 N.Y.2d 800, 711 N.Y.S.2d 168, 733 N.E.2d 240).   Finally, we have reviewed the contentions raised by defendant in his pro se supplemental brief and conclude that they are without merit.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: