People v. Baxter
| Decision Date | 16 January 2013 |
| Citation | 102 A.D.3d 805,961 N.Y.S.2d 194,2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 00220 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Jason BAXTER, appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
102 A.D.3d 805
961 N.Y.S.2d 194
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 00220
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,
v.
Jason BAXTER, appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Jan. 16, 2013.
[961 N.Y.S.2d 195]
Michael A. Fiechter, Bellmore, N.Y., for appellant, and appellant pro se.
Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Tammy J. Smiley, Judith R. Sternberg, and Jason R. Richards of counsel), for respondent.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., THOMAS A. DICKERSON, SANDRA L. SGROI, and SYLVIA HINDS–RADIX, JJ.
[102 A.D.3d 805]Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Honorof, J.), rendered May 24, 2010, convicting him of robbery in the second degree (two counts), grand larceny in the fourth degree, assault in the third degree, and possession of burglar's tools, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing pursuant to a stipulation in lieu of motions, of the suppression of identification testimony.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contentions, the hearing court properly denied his request to suppress a showup identification. Here, the showup took place less than one hour after the crime was reported, within a few blocks of the crime scene, and was not unduly suggestive ( see People v. Mais, 71 A.D.3d 1163, 1165, 897 N.Y.S.2d 716;People v. Gonzalez, 57 A.D.3d 560, 561, 868 N.Y.S.2d 302).
The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court erred in denying his application to proceed pro se is without merit, as his application was neither timely nor unequivocal ( see
[961 N.Y.S.2d 196]
People v. McIntyre, 36 N.Y.2d 10, 14–15, 364 N.Y.S.2d 837, 324 N.E.2d 322;People v. White, 60 A.D.3d 877, 878, 875 N.Y.S.2d 551;People v. Jenkins, 45 A.D.3d 864, 864–865, 846 N.Y.S.2d 347;People v. Carter, 299 A.D.2d 418, 418–419, 749 N.Y.S.2d 101). Similarly, the defendant's contention that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in removing him from the courtroom is without merit ( seeCPL 260.20; People v. Byrnes, 33 N.Y.2d 343, 349, 352 N.Y.S.2d 913, 308 N.E.2d 435). The record shows that the defendant forfeited his right to be present at trial by engaging in disruptive behavior, which caused his removal from the courtroom ( see People v. Garcia, 57 A.D.3d 918, 918, 869 N.Y.S.2d 618;People v. Sanchez, 7 A.D.3d 645, 646, 777 N.Y.S.2d 144).
The defendant's contentions that the trial court failed to provide an expanded...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Paige
...349–350, 352 N.Y.S.2d 913, 308 N.E.2d 435 ; People v. Palermo, 32 N.Y.2d 222, 225, 344 N.Y.S.2d 874, 298 N.E.2d 61 ; People v. Baxter, 102 A.D.3d 805, 805, 961 N.Y.S.2d 194 ; People v. Garcia, 57 A.D.3d 918, 918–919, 869 N.Y.S.2d 618 ; People v. Felix, 2 A.D.3d 535, 536, 767 N.Y.S.2d 918 ).......
-
People v. Edmondson
...1031, 954 N.Y.S.2d 625 ; People v. Golgoski, 40 A.D.3d 1138, 834 N.Y.S.2d 580 ) and, in any event, without merit (see People v. Baxter, 102 A.D.3d 805, 961 N.Y.S.2d 194 ; People v. Harris, 72 A.D.3d 1110, 900 N.Y.S.2d 137 ; People v. Baez, 52 A.D.3d 840, 859 N.Y.S.2d 375 ). AUSTIN, J.P., MI......
-
People v. Nahshal
...at 387, 929 N.Y.S.2d 535, 953 N.E.2d 773 ; People v. LaValle, 3 N.Y.3d 88, 106, 783 N.Y.S.2d 485, 817 N.E.2d 341 ; People v. Baxter, 102 A.D.3d 805, 805, 961 N.Y.S.2d 194 ; People v. White, 60 A.D.3d 877, 878, 875 N.Y.S.2d 551 ; People v. Jenkins, 45 A.D.3d 864, 864–865, 846 N.Y.S.2d 347 ; ......
-
People v. Franks
...to the probative value of the consciousness of guilt evidence, since he never made such a request (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Baxter, 102 A.D.3d 805, 961 N.Y.S.2d 194 ; People v. Hilton, 210 A.D.2d 180, 621 N.Y.S.2d 23 ; People v. Singleton, 121 A.D.2d 752, 504 N.Y.S.2d 167 ). In any eve......