People v Jackson (Luke)

[*1] People v Jackson (Luke) 2015 NY Slip Op 51611(U) Decided on November 10, 2015 Appellate Term, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on November 10, 2015
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Schoenfeld, J.P., Shulman, Hunter, Jr., JJ.
12-147

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, -

against

Luke Jackson, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Rita M. Mella, J., at suppression motion; Tamiko A. Amaker, J. at plea; Robert M. Mandelbaum, J. at sentencing), rendered April 1, 2011, convicting him, upon a plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Rita M. Mella, J., at suppression motion; Tamiko A. Amaker, J. at plea; Robert M. Mandelbaum, J. at sentencing), rendered April 1, 2011, reversed, on the law, the plea vacated, the information reinstated, and the matter remanded to Criminal Court for further proceedings

As the People now concede, the plea was defective because the court did not inform defendant of the length of the term of probation that he would be receiving (see People v Harnett, 16 NY3d 200, 205 [2011]). Although defendant has served his sentence, we decline his invitation to dismiss the accusatory instrument in view of the serious nature of the underlying charges (see People v Extale, 18 NY3d 690, 696 [2012]).

The court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress. Defendant's present argument that the search warrant application failed to establish probable cause for the search is not preserved for our review and, in any event, lacks merit. The search warrant was validly issued, since the details of the controlled buys made by a confidential informant at defendant's apartment established probable cause to believe that a search of the apartment would result in evidence of drug activity (see People v Freeman, 106 AD3d 590 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1073 [2013]). Inasmuch as the confidential informant, while under oath, directly provided information to the issuing court, the Aguilar-Spinelli test (see Aguilar v Texas, 378 US 108 [1964]; Spinelli v United States, 393 US 410 [1969]), is inapplicable to the instant matter (see People v Taylor, 73 NY2d 683, 688 [1989]; People v Tordella, 37 AD3d 500 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 991 [2007]). THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur

Decision Date: November 10, 2015