People v. Johnson

• Decision Date: 21 December 2018
• Docket Number: 1169,KA 16–00657
• Citation: 89 N.Y.S.3d 505,167 A.D.3d 1512
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. William D. JOHNSON, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

167 A.D.3d 1512
89 N.Y.S.3d 505

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
William D. JOHNSON, Defendant–Appellant.

1169
KA 16–00657

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

December 21, 2018

LEANNE LAPP, PUBLIC DEFENDER, CANANDAIGUA, D.J. & J.A. CIRANDO, ESQS., SYRACUSE (BRADLEY E. KEEM OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT.

JAMES B. RITTS, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, CANANDAIGUA (V. CHRISTOPHER EAGGLESTON OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., CARNI, CURRAN, TROUTMAN, AND WINSLOW, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously reversed as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice and on the law, the plea is vacated and the matter is remitted to Ontario County Court for further proceedings on the indictment.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his Alford plea, of assault in the second degree ( Penal Law § 120.05[6] ) and grand larceny in the fourth degree (§ 155.30[1] ). The charges arose when a security officer at a department store observed defendant and his two codefendants fill two shopping carts with

89 N.Y.S.3d 507

$1,100 worth of merchandise and approach the exit of the store with the unpaid merchandise. Defendant and his two codefendants abandoned the merchandise near the exit and left the store. They entered a vehicle that was in the parking lot, and one of the codefendants led police on a high-speed traffic chase from Ontario County to Monroe County. The car chase resulted in two motor vehicle accidents, including one in which a police officer was injured. All three codefendants abandoned the vehicle at the side of the highway and led police on a foot chase through an open field and into a wooded area. Defendant was apprehended by police and transported back to Canandaigua for a showup identification procedure at the department store with the security officer.

Initially, we reject defendant's contention that the identification procedure was unduly suggestive. The showup, which was conducted approximately two hours after defendant and his codefendants were observed by the security officer with the two carts of unpaid merchandise, was " ‘reasonable under the circumstances’ " presented in this case ( People v. Cedeno, 27 N.Y.3d 110, 123, 31 N.Y.S.3d 434, 50 N.E.3d 901 [2016], cert denied ––– U.S. ––––, 137 S.Ct. 205, 196 L.Ed.2d 133 [2016] ; see People v. Brisco, 99 N.Y.2d 596, 597, 758 N.Y.S.2d 262, 788 N.E.2d 611 [2003] ; People v. Duuvon, 77 N.Y.2d 541, 543, 569 N.Y.S.2d 346, 571 N.E.2d 654 [1991] ). There is no bright-line rule for determining whether a showup identification procedure is per se unacceptable based on the lapse of time between the commission of the crime and the identification procedure (see People v. Howard, 22 N.Y.3d 388, 402, 981 N.Y.S.2d 310, 4 N.E.3d 320 [2013] ) and, in this case, the showup was part of a continuous, ongoing police investigation (see Brisco, 99 N.Y.2d at 597, 758 N.Y.S.2d 262, 788 N.E.2d 611 ; People v. Thomas, 164 A.D.3d 619, 620, 82 N.Y.S.3d 82 [2d Dept. 2018], lv denied 32 N.Y.3d 1068, 89 N.Y.S.3d 123, 113 N.E.3d 957 [2018]; People v. Capers, 94 A.D.3d 1475, 1476, 942 N.Y.S.2d 731 [4th Dept. 2012], lv denied 19 N.Y.3d 971, 950 N.Y.S.2d 354, 973 N.E.2d 764 [2012] ; see also Howard, 22 N.Y.3d at 402, 981 N.Y.S.2d 310, 4 N.E.3d 320 ), which spanned two counties and involved multiple law enforcement agencies, due in large part to the flight of defendant and his codefendants. We further conclude that the showup was not rendered unduly suggestive by the fact that defendant was standing between two uniformed officers and the security officer could see the parking lot where the police cars were parked (see People v. Owens, 161 A.D.3d 1567, 1568, 77 N.Y.S.3d 257 [4th Dept. 2018] ; People v. Thompson, 132 A.D.3d 1364, 1365, 17 N.Y.S.3d 820 [4th Dept. 2015], lv denied 27 N.Y.3d 1156, 39 N.Y.S.3d 390, 62 N.E.3d 130 [2016] ), or by the fact that defendant's showup was conducted in sequence with the showups of his codefendants (see generally People v. Ball, 57 A.D.3d 1444, 1445, 871 N.Y.S.2d 532 [4th Dept. 2008], lv denied 12 N.Y.3d 755, 876 N.Y.S.2d 707, 904 N.E.2d 844 [2009] ).

We agree with defendant, however, that County Court erred in accepting his Alford plea because the record lacks the requisite strong evidence of his actual guilt (see generally Matter of Silmon v. Travis, 95 N.Y.2d 470, 475, 718 N.Y.S.2d 704, 741 N.E.2d 501 [2000] ; People v. Richardson, 132 A.D.3d 1313, 1316, 17 N.Y.S.3d 245 [4th Dept. 2015], lv denied 26 N.Y.3d 1145, 32 N.Y.S.3d 63, 51 N.E.3d 574 [2016] )....