Summary
In Elliot, after a witness expressed some uncertainty as to whether the defendant was the person he observed breaking into an apartment in another building, a police sergeant stated to the witness that the police needed to know whether he was certain or not in order to decide whether they should continue their search for the burglar (id. at 183-184).
Summary of this case from People v. GuitierresOpinion
May 3, 2001.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (George Daniels, J. at hearing; Ira Beal, J. at jury trial and sentence), rendered March 15, 1999, convicting defendant of burglary in the second degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and sentencing him, as a persistent felony offender, to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of from 15 years to life and a concurrent determinate term of 1 year, unanimously affirmed.
William McGuire, for respondent.
Luke Martland, for defendant-appellant.
BEFORE: Rosenberger, J.P., Williams, Andrias, Buckley, Friedman, JJ.
Defendant's suppression motion was properly denied. The showup identification was not unduly suggestive (see, People v. Duuvon, 77 N.Y.2d 541, 545). The police sergeant's balanced comment, made after the witness expressed some uncertainty as to whether defendant was the person he observed breaking into an apartment in another building, that the police needed to know whether the witness was certain or not in order to decide whether they should continue their search for the burglar, did not pressure the witness to identify defendant.
Defendant acknowledges that his argument that the sentencing court did not follow the procedures set forth in CPL 400.20 in adjudicating him a persistent felony offender is unpreserved for our review and we decline to do so in the interest of justice (see, People v. Banks, 265 A.D.2d 163, lv denied 94 N.Y.2d 819) because, as distinguished from People v. Jones ( 268 A.D.2d 356), there was sufficient compliance with the statutory notice and hearing provisions.
Defendant's remaining contentions, including those contained in hispro se supplemental brief, are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.