Opinion

BROWN, DERYL, PEOPLE v

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Filed
Mar 16, 2012
Status
Published
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 3.2%

The opinion

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

335

KA 08-01689

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DERYL BROWN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

(APPEAL NO. 1.)

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (KIMBERLY F. DUGUAY OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

MICHAEL C. GREEN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (NANCY A. GILLIGAN OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (John R.

Schwartz, A.J.), rendered June 16, 2008. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon

in the second degree.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: In appeal No. 1, defendant appeals from a judgment

convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of a

weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03 [3]) and, in appeal

No. 2, he appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of

guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (§

265.02 [1]). Defendant contends in each appeal that County Court

erred in refusing to suppress physical evidence based on its

determination following a Darden hearing with respect to the

confidential informant relied upon by the police. We reject that

contention (see generally People v Edwards, 95 NY2d 486, 493-494;

People v Darden, 34 NY2d 177, 181-182, rearg denied 34 NY2d 995). We

have reviewed the sealed transcript of the Darden hearing, as well as

the court’s requisite “summary report as to the existence of the

informer and with respect to the communications made by the informer

to the police to which the police testify” made available to defendant

and the People (Darden, 34 NY2d at 181). Based on those documents, we

conclude that the court properly determined that the confidential

informant existed and that he provided the information to the police

concerning defendant’s possession of the handgun at the location where

defendant was stopped by the police and subsequently arrested.

Entered: March 16, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.