People v. Doherty
| Decision Date | 08 November 1993 |
| Citation | 603 N.Y.S.2d 56,198 A.D.2d 296 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. James DOHERTY, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
William R. Weiselberg, Centereach, for appellant.
James M. Catterson, Jr., Dist. Atty., Riverhead (Adrienne Brewington, of counsel; Mary M. Wilcox on the brief), for respondent.
Before LAWRENCE, J.P., and EIBER, O'BRIEN and SANTUCCI, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Sherman, J.), rendered February 10, 1992, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the showup identifications were not so unnecessarily suggestive as to create a substantial likelihood of misidentification (see, People v. Duuvon, 77 N.Y.2d 541, 569 N.Y.S.2d 346, 571 N.E.2d 654; People v. Adams, 53 N.Y.2d 241, 440 N.Y.S.2d 902, 423 N.E.2d 379). We note that the identification which was made by a witness who was very near the crime scene was conducted within minutes of both the commission of the crime and the witness's initial sighting of the defendant. Under these circumstances, "[a] speedy-on-the-scene viewing thus was of value * * * to law enforcement authorities * * * and was [thus] appropriate" (People v. Hicks, 68 N.Y.2d 234, 242, 508 N.Y.S.2d 163, 500 N.E.2d 861). In addition, where the showup identification takes place within a short time after the crime and very near the crime scene, "[t]he fact that defendant was handcuffed in the patrol car alone does not transform the viewing into an unduly suggestive one" (People v. Duuvon, 160 A.D.2d 653, 559 N.Y.S.2d 270, aff'd, 77 N.Y.2d 541, 569 N.Y.S.2d 346, 571 N.E.2d 654). Similarly, the identification made by the complainant was conducted in temporal proximity to the commission of the crime and was otherwise properly conducted.
The defendant's contentions regarding his plea are unpreserved for appellate review since the defendant neither moved to withdraw his plea prior to sentencing nor raised the contentions by way of a motion to vacate the judgment of conviction (see, People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5; People v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Ward
...People v. Calero, 105 A.D.3d at 865, 962 N.Y.S.2d 665;People v. Bitz, 209 A.D.2d 709, 709–710, 619 N.Y.S.2d 158;People v. Doherty, 198 A.D.2d 296, 296–297, 603 N.Y.S.2d 56), even where “the victim had been told that the police had a suspect in custody” ( People v. Gil, 21 A.D.3d 1120, 1121,......
-
People v. Calero
...77 N.Y.2d 541, 543–545, 569 N.Y.S.2d 346, 571 N.E.2d 654;People v. Bitz, 209 A.D.2d 709, 709–710, 619 N.Y.S.2d 158;People v. Doherty, 198 A.D.2d 296, 296–297, 603 N.Y.S.2d 56;People v. Rowlett, 193 A.D.2d 768, 768, 597 N.Y.S.2d 718;People v. Carbonaro, 162 A.D.2d 459, 459, 556 N.Y.S.2d 158)......
-
People v. Brock
...and in a timely manner (People v. Duuvon, 77 N.Y.2d 541[1991] ; People v. Cortez, 221 A.D.2d 255, 256 [1st Dept 1995] ; People v. Doherty, 198 A.D.2d 296 [2d Dept 1993], lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 804 [1994] ; People v. Sturgis, 199 A.D.2d 549 [2d Dept 1993], lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 858 [1994] ). The ......
-
People v. Rosa
...fact that the defendant was handcuffed did not render the viewing unduly suggestive (see, People v. Duuvon, supra; People v. Doherty, 198 A.D.2d 296, 297, 603 N.Y.S.2d 56). There is no merit to the defendant's contention that the People failed to satisfy their initial burden of coming forwa......