People v. Faulk

• Decision Date: 01 June 1998
• Citation: 251 A.D.2d 345,673 N.Y.S.2d 715
• Parties: , 1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 5285 The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Quinton FAULK, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 715

673 N.Y.S.2d 715

251 A.D.2d 345, 1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 5285

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Quinton FAULK, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Second Department.

June 1, 1998.

William E. Mariano, White Plains, for appellant.

Jeanine Pirro, District Attorney, White Plains (Katherine S. Spiess and Bruce Edward Kelly, of counsel), for respondent.

Before ROSENBLATT, J.P., and COPERTINO, SANTUCCI and GOLDSTEIN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Appeal by the defendant from two judgments of the County Court, Westchester County (Leavitt, J.), both rendered March 13, 1995, convicting him of forgery in the second degree (four counts), bail jumping in the second degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree under Indictment No. 94-00169, and burglary in the second degree (two counts) under Indictment No. 94-00337, upon jury verdicts, and imposing sentences. The appeal under Indictment No. 94-00337 brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress identification evidence.

ORDERED that the judgments are affirmed.

By failing to comply with the requirements of CPL 270.10, the defendant waived any objections he may have had to the composition of the jury panel (see also, People v. Branch, 244 A.D.2d 562, 665 N.Y.S.2d 674; People v. Battle, 221 A.D.2d 648, 634 N.Y.S.2d 192; People v. Sloan, 202 A.D.2d 525, 609 N.Y.S.2d 67; People v. Boudin, 87 A.D.2d 133, 451 N.Y.S.2d 153). Furthermore, the written motion that the defendant submitted on this issue was patently deficient because it failed to allege facts demonstrating that the claimed underrepresentation of black persons on the jury was the result of systematic exclusion (see, e.g., People v. Hobson, 227 A.D.2d 643, 643 N.Y.S.2d 610; People v. Magee, 208 A.D.2d 977, 617 N.Y.S.2d 227).

With regard to the defendant's challenge to the showup identifications under Indictment No. 94-00337, the facts adduced at the trial may not be considered in connection with our evaluation of the hearing court's determination (see, People v. Taylor, 206 A.D.2d 904, 616 N.Y.S.2d 116; People v. Ore, 157 A.D.2d 749, 551 N.Y.S.2d 531). The hearing court properly determined that the showup identifications were not unduly suggestive, given the close spatial and temporal proximity to the commission of the crime (see, e.g., People v. Duuvon, 77 N.Y.2d 541, 569 N.Y.S.2d 346, 571 N.E.2d 654; People v. Riley, 70 N.Y.2d 523, 522...