From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Reed

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Mar 3, 2016
137 A.D.3d 438 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)

Opinion

16463 3891/11.

03-03-2016

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Calvin REED, Defendant–Appellant.

Richard M. Greenberg, Office of the Appellate Defender, New York (Margaret E. Knight of counsel), for appellant. Calvin Reed, appellant pro se. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Luis Morales of counsel), for respondent.


Richard M. Greenberg, Office of the Appellate Defender, New York (Margaret E. Knight of counsel), for appellant.

Calvin Reed, appellant pro se.

Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Luis Morales of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Laura A. Ward, J.), rendered October 22, 2012, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of 8½ years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348–349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 2007 ). There is no basis for disturbing the jury's determinations concerning identification and credibility. Defendant, who was arrested in very close temporal and spatial proximity to the crime, matched, in critical respects, the detailed description provided by the victims.

The court properly denied defendant's suppression motion. The police conducted a prompt showup in the vicinity of the robbery in a manner that was not unduly suggestive, given the fast-paced chain of events (see People v. Duuvon, 77 N.Y.2d 541, 544–545, 569 N.Y.S.2d 346, 571 N.E.2d 654 1991 ). Although defendant was guarded by three police officers, this was an appropriate security measure, and “the overall effect of the allegedly suggestive circumstances was not significantly greater than what is inherent in any showup” (People v. Brujan, 104 A.D.3d 481, 482, 960 N.Y.S.2d 421 1st Dept.2013, lv. denied 21 N.Y.3d 1014, 971 N.Y.S.2d 496, 994 N.E.2d 392 2013 ).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.

We have considered and rejected defendant's pro se claims.

TOM, J.P., RENWICK, SAXE, KAPNICK, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Reed

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Mar 3, 2016
137 A.D.3d 438 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
Case details for

People v. Reed

Case Details

Full title:The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Calvin Reed…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Mar 3, 2016

Citations

137 A.D.3d 438 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
25 N.Y.S.3d 870
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 1547

Citing Cases

People v. Rodriguez

The stop of defendant was supported by, at least, reasonable suspicion, where defendant met a detailed…

People v. Rodriguez

The stop of defendant was supported by, at least, reasonable suspicion, where defendant met a detailed…