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, etc., respondent, v. Blake Wingate, appellant.
Argued-January 4, 2010
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Spires, J.), rendered July 27, 2005, convicting him of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is modified, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by vacating the conviction of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree and the sentence imposed thereon, and dismissing that count of the indictment; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.
Although the defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish that he was in possession of the stolen van is not preserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492; People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 19-21), we nevertheless reach the contention in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see CPL 470.15[3][c] ), and vacate the conviction of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree (see Penal Law § 165.45[5] ). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621), we find that the evidence that the defendant was briefly seated in the parked van before the police arrived was insufficient to establish the element of possession, as a person's mere presence in a vehicle does not support a rational inference that he or she exercised dominion and control over it (see Penal Law 10.00[8]; People v. Rivera, 82 N.Y.2d 695; Matter of Gary S., 197 A.D.2d 580, 581; People v. Gregory, 147 A.D.2d 497; People v. Brown, 115 A.D.2d 791).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit, or need not be reached in light of our determination.
SKELOS, J.P., SANTUCCI, DICKERSON and ROMAN, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
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.
Docket No: 2005-07437 (Ind.No. 941 /04)
Decided: February 02, 2010
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)