People v. Martin

• Decision Date: 23 April 2014
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Wayne MARTIN, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

116 A.D.3d 981
983 N.Y.S.2d 813
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 02801

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,
v.
Wayne MARTIN, appellant.

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

April 23, 2014.

Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Jonathan M. Kratter of counsel), for appellant, and appellant pro se.

Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Victor Barall, and Allison Ageyeva of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marrus, J.), rendered September 8, 2010, convicting him of murder in the first degree and assault in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention, raised in his pro se supplemental brief, that the lineup identification procedure was unduly suggestive, is unpreserved for appellate review, since at the Wade hearing ( seeUnited States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149), he failed to raise the specific grounds upon which he now challenges the procedure ( seeCPL 470.05[2]; People v. Fields, 66 A.D.3d 799, 799, 887 N.Y.S.2d 182;People v. Lago, 60 A.D.3d 784, 784–785, 875 N.Y.S.2d 178). In any event, the People established in the first instance that the lineup procedure was not improper, and the defendant failed to establish that the procedure was unduly suggestive ( see

[983 N.Y.S.2d 814]

People v. Chipp, 75 N.Y.2d 327, 335–336, 553 N.Y.S.2d 72, 552 N.E.2d 608,cert. denied498 U.S. 833, 111 S.Ct. 99, 112 L.Ed.2d 70).

The defendant's contention, raised in his main brief and in Points I through III of his pro se supplemental brief, that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his convictions of murder in the first degree and assault in the first degree, is unpreserved for appellate review ( seeCPL 470.05[2]; People v. Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 492, 872 N.Y.S.2d 395, 900 N.E.2d 946;People v. Gonzalez, 94 A.D.3d 775, 776, 941 N.Y.S.2d 507;People v. Reid, 82 A.D.3d 1268, 1268, 919 N.Y.S.2d 862). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( seePeople v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the...