People v. Hewitt

Decision Date22 March 2011
Citation82 A.D.3d 1119,2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 02414,919 N.Y.S.2d 204
PartiesThe PEOPLE, etc., respondent,v.Shakir HEWITT, appellant.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

82 A.D.3d 1119
919 N.Y.S.2d 204
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 02414

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,
v.
Shakir HEWITT, appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

March 22, 2011.


[919 N.Y.S.2d 205]

John De Chiaro, Larchmont, N.Y., for appellant, and appellant pro se.Janet DiFiore, District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Raffaelina Gianfrancesco and Richard Longworth Hecht of counsel), for respondent.JOSEPH COVELLO, J.P., THOMAS A. DICKERSON, RANDALL T. ENG, and SANDRA L. SGROI, JJ.

[82 A.D.3d 1119] Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County [82 A.D.3d 1120] Court, Westchester County (Cohen, J.), rendered February 19, 2008, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree (two counts), assault in the second degree (two counts), and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of those branches of the defendant's omnibus motion which were to suppress identification testimony, his statement to law enforcement officials, and physical evidence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that the police lacked probable cause to arrest him is without merit. The evidence at the suppression hearing established that at the time they took the defendant into custody, the police had probable cause to arrest the defendant based on information provided by identifiable citizens that he had committed a crime ( see People v. Maldonado, 86 N.Y.2d 631, 635, 635 N.Y.S.2d 155, 658 N.E.2d 1028;

[919 N.Y.S.2d 206]

People v. Cooper, 38 A.D.3d 678, 679, 833 N.Y.S.2d 118; People v. Cotton, 143 A.D.2d 680, 532 N.Y.S.2d 911).

The defendant's contention that the photo array from which the complainant selected his picture was unduly suggestive is without merit. There were no characteristics of the defendant's picture that made it stand out in any way from the others in the array, so as to draw a viewer's attention to it and indicate that the police had “made a particular selection” ( People v. Curtis, 71 A.D.3d 1044, 1045, 900 N.Y.S.2d 68; see People v. Ferguson, 55 A.D.3d 926, 866 N.Y.S.2d 346; People v. Wright, 297 A.D.2d 391, 746 N.Y.S.2d 611). Accordingly, the hearing court properly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

The defendant's contention that his statement to the police should have been suppressed because he...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • People v. Barber
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • November 25, 2015
    ...is unpreserved for appellate review, as the defendant's motion to dismiss was based on a different argument (see People v. Hewitt, 82 A.D.3d 1119, 919 N.Y.S.2d 204 ; People v. Carlucci, 80 A.D.3d 621, 914 N.Y.S.2d 663 ; People v. Crawford, 38 A.D.3d 680, 832 N.Y.S.2d 254 ; People v. Bartell......
  • People v. Romero
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • December 12, 2012
    ...for appellate review ( seeCPL 470.05 [2]; People v. Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 872 N.Y.S.2d 395, 900 N.E.2d 946;People v. Hewitt, 82 A.D.3d 1119, 1121, 919 N.Y.S.2d 204). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 62......
  • People v. Gonzalez, 2018–06239
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • May 6, 2020
    ...for appellate review (see CPL 470.50[2] ; People v. Hawkins , 11 N.Y.3d 484, 872 N.Y.S.2d 395, 900 N.E.2d 946 ; People v. Hewitt , 82 A.D.3d 1119, 1121, 919 N.Y.S.2d 204 ). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v. Contes , 60 N.Y.2d 62......
  • People v. Guitierres
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • March 22, 2011
    ...the robbery, then no arrest [919 N.Y.S.2d 214] would be made. This is a disappointing outcome for both the complainant and the police. [82 A.D.3d 1119] With respect to the second showup identification, the complainant was asked if the defendant Brandon Abriz was involved in the robbery. Aft......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT