PEOPLE v. SYLVESTER (2005)

 Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of criminal trespass in the third degree (Penal Law § 140.10 [a] ) and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree (§ 165.40).   Suppression of defendant's statements was properly denied by County Court.   The evidence does not support the contention that the statements were the result of defendant's will having been overborne by official coercion of a physical or psychological nature (see People v. Mateo, 2 N.Y.3d 383, 413, 779 N.Y.S.2d 399, 811 N.E.2d 1053, cert. denied 542 U.S. 946, 124 S.Ct. 2929, 159 L.Ed.2d 828;  People v. Anderson, 42 N.Y.2d 35, 38-41, 396 N.Y.S.2d 625, 364 N.E.2d 1318;  see also Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 285-288, 111 S.Ct. 1246, 113 L.Ed.2d 302, reh. denied 500 U.S. 938, 111 S.Ct. 2067, 114 L.Ed.2d 472;  Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157, 167, 170-171, 107 S.Ct. 515, 93 L.Ed.2d 473).   The court did not err in refusing to charge attempted criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree as a lesser included offense of criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree.   That defendant dropped the stolen tools upon being chased does not alter the fact that he had already reduced the tools to his possession (see People v. Welsh, 124 A.D.2d 301, 303-304, 508 N.Y.S.2d 278).   There is thus no reasonable view of the evidence that defendant was guilty of the lesser crime but not the greater (see id. at 304, 508 N.Y.S.2d 278;  see also People v. Glover, 57 N.Y.2d 61, 63-64, 453 N.Y.S.2d 660, 439 N.E.2d 376;  see generally CPL 300.50).   The court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that defendant could be cross-examined concerning his recent conviction of petit larceny (see People v. Hayes, 97 N.Y.2d 203, 207-208, 738 N.Y.S.2d 663, 764 N.E.2d 963;  People v. Taylor, 11 A.D.3d 930, 930-931, 782 N.Y.S.2d 215).

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

MEMORANDUM: