People v. Capehart

• Court: New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
• Citation: 151 A.D.2d 592,543 N.Y.S.2d 921
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. John CAPEHART, Appellant.
• Decision Date: 12 June 1989

Page 921

543 N.Y.S.2d 921

151 A.D.2d 592

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. John CAPEHART, Appellant.

Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division,

Second Department.

June 12, 1989

Gary E. Eisenberg, Monroe, for appellant. Kenneth Gribetz, Dist. Atty., New City (Janice Gittelman, of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Rockland County (Nelson, J.), rendered April 7, 1987, convicting him of grand larceny in the fourth degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial of those branches of the defendant's omnibus motion which were to suppress identification testimony and certain statements made by him to law enforcement authorities. ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed. The trial court properly exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to withdraw his pleas of guilty. The record reveals that the defendant voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently entered his pleas of guilty (see People v. Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9, 471 N.Y.S.2d 61, 459 N.E.2d 170) and that he readily made full factual allocutions admitting his guilt of the crimes (see, People v. Parilla, 135 A.D.2d 745, 522 N.Y.S.2d 650; People v. Williams, 145 A.D.2d 672, 536 N.Y.S.2d 994). The defendant's assertion of coercion was properly rejected (see, People v. Doherty, 134 A.D.2d 513 521 N.Y.S.2d 397; People v. Stubbs, 110 A.D.2d 725, 487 N.Y.S.2d 824). Moreover, we find no basis for disturbing the hearing court's finding that the witness's identification of the defendant while handcuffed and in a police vehicle (see, People v. Session, 143 A.D.2d 233, 531 N.Y.S.2d 1023; People v. Dennis, 125 A.D.2d 325, 509 N.Y.S.2d 58; People v. Johnson, 102 A.D.2d 616, 478 N.Y.S.2d 987) and in the presence of recovered property (cf., People v. Brown, 143 A.D.2d 524, 533 N.Y.S.2d 354), was not impermissibly suggestive. Furthermore, the court correctly ruled that there was an independent basis for the witness's in-court identification of the defendant (see, People v. Riley, 70 N.Y.2d 523, 522 N.Y.S.2d 842, 517 N.E.2d 520). Finally, inasmuch as the statements made by the defendant at the precinct were volunteered and not made in response to police interrogation (see People v. Kaye, 25 N.Y.2d 139, 303 N.Y.S.2d 41, 250 N.E.2d 329; People v. Wade, 143 A.D.2d 703, 707, 533 N.Y.S.2d 83; People v. Sanders, 79 A.D.2d 688, 689, 433 N.Y.S.2d 854) ...