People v. Hammond
| Decision Date | 29 June 1987 |
| Citation | 517 N.Y.S.2d 232,131 A.D.2d 876 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Pernell HAMMOND, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Philip L. Weinstein, New York City (Abigail Everett, of counsel), for appellant.
Pernell Hammond, pro se.
Elizabeth Holtzman, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Barbara D. Underwood, Miriam R. Best and Seth M. Lieberman, of counsel), for respondent.
Before MANGANO, J.P., and NIEHOFF, KOOPER and SPATT, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Egitto, J), rendered June 29, 1984, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and grand larceny in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and sentencing him to concurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment of from 8 1/3 to 25 years and from 1 1/3 to 4 years, respectively. The appeal brings up for review the denial (Goldstein, J), after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress the complainant's identification testimony.
ORDERED that the judgment is modified as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the sentence imposed on the defendant's conviction of robbery in the first degree to 6 to 18 years imprisonment; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's challenge to the hearing court's Wade ruling is without merit. The mere fact that the investigating police officer advised the complainant that the man whose photograph she had selected would be in the lineup does not render the ensuing lineup impermissibly suggestive (see, People Rodriquez, 64 N.Y.2d 738, 485 N.Y.S.2d 976, 475 N.E.2d 443; People v. Velez, 109 A.D.2d 767, 486 N.Y.S.2d 84). The hearing court's finding that there was no contact between the complainant and the defendant at the station house prior to the identification is amply supported by the hearing testimony, as is its finding that all of the participants in the lineup were of similar appearance.
We further concur with the court's determination that the complaining witness had an independent basis upon which to make an in-court identification of the defendant. The complainant testified that the robbery took place in a well-lit area and lasted between five and eight minutes, during which time she and the defendant were only a foot apart.
The defendant's contention that his guilt was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt is also unpersuasive. The testimony of the defendant and his alibi...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Douglas
...an otherwise fair lineup ( see, People v. Rodriguez, 64 N.Y.2d 738, 740-741, 485 N.Y.S.2d 976, 475 N.E.2d 443; People v. Hammond, 131 A.D.2d 876, 877, 517 N.Y.S.2d 232, lv. denied 70 N.Y.2d 800, 522 N.Y.S.2d 117, 516 N.E.2d 1230). In any event, based upon the duration of the robbery wherein......
-
People v. Anthony
...v. Rodriguez, 64 N.Y.2d 738, 485 N.Y.S.2d 976, 475 N.E.2d 443; People v. Wiredo, 138 A.D.2d 652, 526 N.Y.S.2d 235; People v. Hammond, 131 A.D.2d 876, 878, 517 N.Y.S.2d 232). We would note that the trial court erred in making a determination as to independent source based on the trial testim......
-
People v. Wiredo
...the lineup impermissibly suggestive ( see, People v. Rodriguez, 64 N.Y.2d 738, 485 N.Y.S.2d 976, 475 N.E.2d 443; People v. Hammond, 131 A.D.2d 876, 517 N.Y.S.2d 232, lv. denied 70 N.Y.2d 800, 522 N.Y.S.2d 117, 516 N.E.2d 1230). Moreover, the photographic array from which the witnesses chose......
-
People v. LaMontagne
...mustaches put on them, we find that such comments "[did] not render the ensuing lineup impermissibly suggestive" (People v. Hammond, 131 A.D.2d 876, 877, 517 N.Y.S.2d 232; see, People v. Rodriguez, 64 N.Y.2d 738, 485 N.Y.S.2d 976, 475 N.E.2d 443). Moreover, an examination of a photograph of......