PEOPLE v. COLEMAN

Reset A A Font size: Print

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

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Lekia COLEMAN, Defendant-Appellant.

Decided: December 31, 2008

PRESENT:  SCUDDER, P.J., HURLBUTT, FAHEY, PERADOTTO, AND PINE, JJ. Frank H. HiscockLegal Aid Society, Syracuse (Mary P. Davison of Counsel), for Defendant-Appellant. William J. Fitzpatrick, District Attorney, Syracuse (James P. Maxwell of Counsel), for Respondent.

 Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16[1], [12] ) and one count of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (§ 265.02 [1] ).   Contrary to defendant's contention, the record of the suppression hearing supports Supreme Court's determination that defendant voluntarily waived his Miranda rights by “cooperating with his ․ interrogation” (People v. Sirno, 76 N.Y.2d 967, 968, 563 N.Y.S.2d 730, 565 N.E.2d 479;  see People v. Gill, 20 A.D.3d 434, 798 N.Y.S.2d 507).   Thus, the court properly refused to suppress physical evidence seized from defendant's residence as the alleged fruit of the poisonous tree (see generally People v. Watts, 309 A.D.2d 1256, 1257, 764 N.Y.S.2d 737, lv. denied 1 N.Y.3d 582, 775 N.Y.S.2d 798, 807 N.E.2d 911;   People v. Cline, 192 A.D.2d 957, 957-958, 596 N.Y.S.2d 925, lv. denied 81 N.Y.2d 1071, 601 N.Y.S.2d 590, 619 N.E.2d 668).   We reject defendant's further contention that the testimony of the People's witnesses at the suppression hearing was not credible and thus that the court erred in determining that the stop of defendant's car was lawful.   The court's credibility determination is entitled to great deference (see People v. Edwards, 55 A.D.3d 1337, 865 N.Y.S.2d 454), and we conclude that the testimony “was not so inherently incredible or improbable as to warrant disturbing the ․ court's determination of credibility” (People v. Walters, 52 A.D.3d 1273, 1274, 860 N.Y.S.2d 710, lv. denied 11 N.Y.3d 795, 866 N.Y.S.2d 622, 896 N.E.2d 108).

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed, and the matter is remitted to Supreme Court, Onondaga County, for proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50(5).

MEMORANDUM: