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. DALLAS E. PONZO, JR., DEFENDANT–APPELLANT.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of, inter alia, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree (Penal Law § 220.06[5] ) and aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the second degree (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 511[2][a] [iv] ). We reject defendant's contention that Supreme Court erred in refusing to suppress the crack cocaine seized from the vehicle he was driving. The court's implicit credibility determinations “ ‘are entitled to great deference on appeal and will not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record’ “ (People v. Bush, 107 AD3d 1581, 1582). The testimony at the suppression hearing established that the State Troopers observed defendant driving a vehicle in excess of the posted speed limit, which justified their stop of the vehicle for speeding (see People v. Williams, 79 AD3d 1653, 1654, affd 17 NY3d 834). Thereafter, one of the Troopers, trained in the recognition of marihuana, detected the odor of marihuana when he approached the vehicle, which provided probable cause to search the vehicle (see People v. Chestnut, 43 A.D.2d 260, 261, affd 36 N.Y.2d 971; People v. Cuffie, 109 AD3d 1200, 1201). Further, the Trooper noticed marihuana “residue” on the driver's side floorboard and seat. “Having justifiably stopped the vehicle for [a traffic violation] and having detected the odor of marihuana from inside it, [the Trooper] had reasonable suspicion that the [vehicle] contained drugs and the subsequent canine sniff was proper” (People v. Gathogo, 276 A.D.2d 925, 926–927, lv denied 96 N.Y.2d 734). Contrary to defendant's contention, the Trooper's testimony was not “incredible as a matter of law,” i.e., “ ‘manifestly untrue, physically impossible, contrary to experience, or self-contradictory’ “ (Bush, 107 AD3d at 1582).
We note that defendant's release to parole supervision does not render moot his challenge to the severity of the sentence because “he ‘remains under the control of the Parole Board until his sentence has terminated’ “ (People v. Barber, 106 AD3d 1533, 1533). Nevertheless, we conclude that the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court
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.
Docket No: KA 12–00164
Decided: November 08, 2013
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth 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)