People v. Burton
| Decision Date | 14 June 1993 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Harold BURTON, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Philip L. Weinstein, New York City (Adrienne Hale, of counsel), for appellant.
Charles J. Hynes, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Roseann B. MacKechnie, Jonathan Frank, and Judybeth Tropp, of counsel), for respondent.
Before BALLETTA, J.P., and ROSENBLATT, MILLER and JOY, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gerges, J.), rendered July 23, 1991, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and assault in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and sentencing him to concurrent indeterminate terms of 12 1/2 to 25 years imprisonment and 7 1/2 to 15 years imprisonment respectively, imposing a mandatory surcharge of $150, and directing the payment of restitution in the amount of $300.
ORDERED that the judgment is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof relating to the imposition of the mandatory surcharge; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the People (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932) we find that the victim police officer's opportunity to observe the defendant in the well-lit street from approximately one foot away during a brutal attack and the officer's unequivocal in-court identification were legally sufficient to establish the defendant's identity beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v. Mouchette, 192 A.D.2d 561, 596 N.Y.S.2d 108; People v. Caballero, 177 A.D.2d 496, 575 N.Y.S.2d 710). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15[5].
The defendant also contends that he was deprived of his right to a public trial (see, People v. Jones, 47 N.Y.2d 409, 418 N.Y.S.2d 359, 391 N.E.2d 1335, cert. denied 444 U.S. 946, 100 S.Ct. 307, 62 L.Ed.2d 315) when the trial court sealed the courtroom during the testimony of certain undercover officers. We decline to reach the merits of this issue since it was not properly preserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Pollock, 50 N.Y.2d 547, 550, 429 N.Y.S.2d 628, 407 N.E.2d 472; People v. Brown, 188 A.D.2d 540, 591 N.Y.S.2d 354; People v. Glaude, 176 A.D.2d 346, 574 N.Y.S.2d 582; People v. Baez, 162 A.D.2d 602, 602-603, 556 N.Y.S.2d 934).
The defendant contends that there was no probable cause to arrest him. It is well settled that information provided by an identified citizen accusing another individual of a specific crime is legally sufficient to provide the police with probable cause to arrest (see, People v. Newton, 180 A.D.2d 764, 580 N.Y.S.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Richter
...in the sum of $2,000 was improper (see, Penal Law § 60.35[1]; People v. Bailey, 209 A.D.2d 709, 619 N.Y.S.2d 682; People v. Burton, 194 A.D.2d 683, 684, 599 N.Y.S.2d 108; People v. Turco, 130 A.D.2d 785, 786, 515 N.Y.S.2d 853). Furthermore, since the award of restitution was apparently base......
-
Catanzaro v. City of Middletown Police Dept.
...the police with probable cause to arrest" (Williams v. City of New York, 208 A.D.2d 919, 919-920, 617 N.Y.S.2d 867; People v. Burton, 194 A.D.2d 683, 684, 599 N.Y.S.2d 108). ROSENBLATT, J.P., and MILLER, RITTER and FLORIO, JJ., ...
-
People v. Butler
...both of whom named him as a perpetrator (see, People v. Berzups, 49 N.Y.2d 417, 426 N.Y.S.2d 253, 402 N.E.2d 1155; People v. Burton, 194 A.D.2d 683, 599 N.Y.S.2d 108; People v. Pagan, 184 A.D.2d 738, 585 N.Y.S.2d 453; People v. Scherifi, 147 A.D.2d 663, 664, 538 N.Y.S.2d 64). Viewing the ev......
-
People v. Hicks
...provided. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, the officer had probable cause to arrest the defendant (see, People v. Burton, 194 A.D.2d 683; People v. Manners, 120 A.D.2d 680; see also, People v. Aponte, 222 A.D.2d As the complainant's showup identification was in close temporal......