PEOPLE v. BEAKER

Reset A A Font size: Print

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

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Anthony BEAKER, Defendant-Appellant.

Decided: May 27, 2004

NARDELLI, J.P., LERNER, FRIEDMAN, MARLOW, GONZALEZ, JJ. Laura R. Johnson, The Legal Aid Society, New York (William B. Carney of counsel), for appellant. Robert T. Johnson, District Attorney, Bronx (Jonathan Zucker of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alexander W. Hunter, Jr., J.), rendered June 20, 2002, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts) and criminal sale of a controlled substance near school grounds (two counts), and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 7 to 14 years, unanimously affirmed.

 The court properly denied defendant's suppression motion.   Since defendant's arguments at the suppression hearing were completely different from those raised on appeal, his current arguments are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find that the police had reasonable suspicion upon which to stop defendant, since he matched a sufficiently detailed description provided by the undercover officer, was observed fleeing the sale location minutes after the sale, and was stopped a few blocks from the location (see People v. Rampersant, 272 A.D.2d 202, 708 N.Y.S.2d 70, lv. denied 95 N.Y.2d 870, 715 N.Y.S.2d 225, 738 N.E.2d 373).   Upon stopping defendant, the police were entitled to detain him briefly for investigative purposes (see People v. Hicks, 68 N.Y.2d 234, 508 N.Y.S.2d 163, 500 N.E.2d 861), and were justified in handcuffing defendant, particularly since he had previously attempted to flee (see People v. Jennings, 281 A.D.2d 285, 722 N.Y.S.2d 141, lv. denied 96 N.Y.2d 903, 730 N.Y.S.2d 800, 756 N.E.2d 88).   The undercover officer's confirmatory identification provided probable cause for defendant's arrest.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.