People v. Hallingquest
| Decision Date | 19 January 1981 |
| Citation | 435 N.Y.S.2d 35,79 A.D.2d 1010 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Edward HALLINGQUEST, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
William E. Hellerstein, New York City (Andrew C. Fine, New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
Eugene Gold, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Michael Yoeli, New York City, of counsel), for respondent.
Before MOLLEN, P. J., and TITONE, MANGANO and O'CONNOR, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeals by defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Kings County, both rendered July 21, 1978, the first convicting him of robbery in the first degree (four counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence, and the second convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
Judgments modified, on the law, by vacating the sentences imposed. As so modified, judgments affirmed and case remitted to Criminal Term for resentencing.
In two separate Kings County indictments, the defendant was charged with armed robberies involving two car service vehicles. Upon the application of the People, and after severing from one indictment a count charging a nonjoinable offense, the court consolidated the two indictments for trial. On appeal, the defendant contends that such consolidation was improper and requires reversal. We disagree.
As to each offense, the identification of the defendant as the perpetrator was strong. The first complainant had an ample opportunity to observe the defendant from a distance of only one and one-half feet during the commission of the crime. He later selected the defendant's photograph from an array and then identified him at a lineup. The other complainant also had a full opportunity to observe the defendant during the course of the second robbery. Moreover, each complainant unequivocally and without hesitation identified the defendant in court. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the Trial Judge abused his discretion by consolidating the two indictments for trial. (See People v. Jenkins, 50 N.Y.2d 981, 431 N.Y.S.2d 471, 409 N.E.2d 944, CPL 200.20, subd. 4.)
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions regarding the conduct of the proceedings and conclude that any error which may have been committed did not deprive him of a fair trial.
We remand for resentencing, however, because, as the People concede, the defendant was not accorded an opportunity to speak in his own behalf prior...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Angelo
...of evidence against the defendant on all three counts, including simultaneous confessions to all three crimes (see, People v. Hallingquest, 79 A.D.2d 1010, 435 N.Y.S.2d 35; see also, People v. Mack, 111 A.D.2d 186, 488 N.Y.S.2d 815, lv. denied, 66 N.Y.2d 616, 494 N.Y.S.2d 1039, 485 N.E.2d 2......
-
People v. Hoke
...has not been shown and the court did not abuse its discretion in requiring a single trial of all the crimes charged (People v. Hallingquest, 79 A.D.2d 1010, 435 N.Y.S.2d 35). In regard to the second contention, we find no error in the trial court's failure to apply the standard of voluntari......
-
People v. McCarroll
...an opportunity to speak in his own behalf prior to the imposition of sentence. This was violative of CPL 380.50 (see People v. Hallingquest, 79 A.D.2d 1010, 435 N.Y.S.2d 35; cf. People v. McClain, 35 N.Y.2d 483, 364 N.Y.S.2d 143, 323 N.E.2d ...
-
People v. Walker
...N.Y.2d 981, 431 N.Y.S.2d 471, 409 N.E.2d 944; People v. Peterson, 35 N.Y.2d 659, 360 N.Y.S.2d 640, 318 N.E.2d 796; People v. Hallingquest, 79 A.D.2d 1010, 435 N.Y.S.2d 35.) MOLLEN, P.J., and TITONE, THOMPSON and WEINSTEIN, JJ., ...