Opinion
2014-06-18
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Tirey S. ALLEN, appellant.
Michael G. Paul, New City, N.Y., for appellant. Janet DiFiore, District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Laurie Sapakoff and Steven Bender of counsel), for respondent.
Michael G. Paul, New City, N.Y., for appellant. Janet DiFiore, District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Laurie Sapakoff and Steven Bender of counsel), for respondent.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., RUTH C. BALKIN, CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, and ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Neary, J.), rendered July 25, 2012, convicting him of assault in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third 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 and statements he made to law enforcement officials.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The Supreme Court did not err in denying that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony. The evidence adduced at the Wade hearing ( see United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149) established that the pretrial identification procedures were not unduly suggestive, as the people depicted in the computer-generated photo arrays viewed by the complainant and a witness were sufficiently similar in appearance to the defendant ( see People v. Lago, 60 A.D.3d 784, 875 N.Y.S.2d 178;People v. Howard, 50 A.D.3d 823, 854 N.Y.S.2d 776).
The Supreme Court also did not err in denying that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress statements he made to law enforcement officials. When the defendant gave what a police officer suspected to be a false name, the officer warned him that giving a false name would result in an additional charge, as required by the false personation statute ( seePenal Law § 190.23). The defendant then repeated the false name after being given a second warning. The officer's warnings to the defendant did not require Miranda warnings ( see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694). There is no basis for suppressing the defendant's repeated use of a false name. Ascertaining an arrestee's true name is a necessary part of the normal booking process, even if the response may have inculpatory connotations ( see People v. Ligon, 66 A.D.3d 516, 517, 887 N.Y.S.2d 60;People v. McCloud, 50 A.D.3d 379, 380, 855 N.Y.S.2d 113). The false personation warnings were required by statute and were not reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response ( see People v. Ligon, 66 A.D.3d at 517, 887 N.Y.S.2d 60;People v. King, 247 A.D.2d 490, 668 N.Y.S.2d 95). On the contrary, the defendant had already incriminated himself by giving a false name, and the warnings gave him an opportunity to retract his prior incriminating responses ( see People v. Ligon, 66 A.D.3d at 517, 887 N.Y.S.2d 60).
The Supreme Court's Sandoval ruling ( see People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 357 N.Y.S.2d 849, 314 N.E.2d 413) was proper. The court properly weighed the probative value of the defendant's prior offenses against the possible prejudice to the defendant, and reached an appropriate compromise ruling ( see People v. Rodriguez, 51 A.D.3d 950, 860 N.Y.S.2d 540;People v. Grier, 47 A.D.3d 729, 730, 849 N.Y.S.2d 608).
The defendant's contention that he received ineffective assistance of counsel is without merit ( see People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 712, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584;People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400).
The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).