From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Warrington

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 26, 1993
192 A.D.2d 735 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Opinion

April 26, 1993

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Scarpino, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The trial evidence showed that State Troopers recovered four ounces of cocaine, 200 glassine envelopes, and two loaded handguns from inside an automobile in which the defendant was a passenger. On appeal, the defendant contends that the statutory presumptions of constructive possession as to the cocaine (Penal Law § 220.25) and the weapons (Penal Law § 265.15), which were charged to the jury, were improperly applied since this contraband was found inside a stereo speaker in the trunk of the car. We disagree.

The statutory presumptions are applicable where, as here, there is a rational connection between the facts proved by the prosecution — the presence of the defendant and the contraband in the car, and the presumed fact — the defendant's knowledge of the contraband (see, Ulster County Ct. v Allen, 442 U.S. 140; People v Leyva, 38 N.Y.2d 160). Because the trunk was unlocked and secured only by a rope and the speaker could be opened simply by unscrewing the top, the contraband was clearly accessible to the defendant (see, People v Lemmons, 40 N.Y.2d 505; People v Glenn, 185 A.D.2d 84; People v Hicks, 138 A.D.2d 519). Moreover, the nature and quantity of the evidence seized from the car and the fact that additional quantities of drugs were recovered from the defendant's person indicates that he was a knowing participant in a drug selling operation (see, People v Leyva, supra; People v Rivera, 135 Misc.2d 766). Contrary to the defendant's contention, it can be rationally inferred from these facts that he had the ability and intent to exercise dominion and control over the contraband (see, People v Lemmons, supra; People v Glenn, supra; People v Hicks, supra).

Nor do we find the defendant's sentence to be excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).

The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Thompson, J.P., Balletta, Miller and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Warrington

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 26, 1993
192 A.D.2d 735 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
Case details for

People v. Warrington

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. KELVIN WARRINGTON…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Apr 26, 1993

Citations

192 A.D.2d 735 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
597 N.Y.S.2d 119

Citing Cases

People v. Pratt

15) was rationally applicable herein given defendant's presence in the van and the accessibility of the…

People v. Pearson

Contrary to defendant's argument, the fact that police discovered the contraband in the vehicle some period…