PEOPLE v. DU PREE

Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Bernard L. DU PREE, Defendant-Appellant.

Decided: September 28, 2007

PRESENT:  SCUDDER, P.J., MARTOCHE, LUNN, PERADOTTO, AND GREEN, JJ. Kathleen E. Casey, Barker, for Defendant-Appellant. Bernard L. Du Pree, Defendant-Appellant pro se. David W. Foley, District Attorney, Mayville, for Respondent.

On appeal from a judgment convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16[12] ), defendant contends that County Court erred in refusing to suppress the cocaine seized from a bag found in the bed of the pickup truck in which he was a passenger.   As the People correctly contend, defendant lacks standing to challenge the search of the bag inasmuch as he failed to meet his burden of establishing that he had “a legitimate expectation of privacy in the ․ object searched” (People v. Ramirez-Portoreal, 88 N.Y.2d 99, 108, 643 N.Y.S.2d 502, 666 N.E.2d 207).   Indeed, defendant disavowed ownership of the bag and thus will not be heard to contend that he had any legitimate expectation of privacy with respect to it (see People v. Doe, 236 A.D.2d 621, 622, 653 N.Y.S.2d 701, lv. denied 89 N.Y.2d 1091, 1103, 660 N.Y.S.2d 385, 397, 682 N.E.2d 986, 998;  see generally Ramirez-Portoreal, 88 N.Y.2d at 108-109, 643 N.Y.S.2d 502, 666 N.E.2d 207).   Finally, we have considered the remaining contentions raised by defendant, including those raised 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: