Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Kenneth PADILLA, Defendant–Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel Conviser, J. at hearing; Wayne M. Ozzi, J. at jury trial and sentencing), rendered September 8, 2010, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of 7 years, unanimously affirmed.
The court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress a revolver recovered from his impounded car. The police conducted a proper inventory search, which was supported by sufficient documentation. The search produced a “meaningful inventory list” (People v. Johnson, 1 N.Y.3d 252, 256, 771 N.Y.S.2d 64, 803 N.E.2d 385 [2003] ), even though the searching officer did not record every item he released to defendant's sister (see People v. Black, 250 A.D.2d 494, 673 N.Y.S.2d 414 [1998], lv. denied 92 N.Y.2d 922, 680 N.Y.S.2d 463, 703 N.E.2d 275 [1998] ), and we do not find there were any deficiencies of any kind that would warrant suppression of the revolver. Regardless of whether the officer suspected that contraband might be present, there was no evidence that the search was conducted as a ruse to discover incriminating evidence (see Johnson, 1 N.Y.3d at 256, 771 N.Y.S.2d 64, 803 N.E.2d 385). Defendant did not preserve his argument that the police improperly impounded his car, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternate holding, we reject it on the merits.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348–349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 [2007] ), particularly when viewed in light of the statutory presumption of possession by all occupants of a vehicle (see Penal Law § 265.15[3] ). Moreover, defendant was the owner, driver, and sole occupant, and the evidence, even without the automobile presumption, warrants the inference that he knew there was a firearm in his car (see People v. Reisman, 29 N.Y.2d 278, 285–286, 327 N.Y.S.2d 342, 277 N.E.2d 396 [1971], cert. denied 405 U.S. 1041, 92 S.Ct. 1315, 31 L.Ed.2d 582 [1972] ).
Defendant's remaining claims do not warrant reversal.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: November 10, 2011
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)