From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Ivey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
May 10, 2000
272 A.D.2d 883 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

May 10, 2000.

Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Kehoe, J. — Robbery, 1st Degree.

Judgment unanimously affirmed.

PRESENT: PIGOTT, JR., P. J., GREEN, WISNER AND SCUDDER, JJ.


Memorandum:

Supreme Court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress a victim's identification of defendant. The People met their initial burden of establishing the reasonableness of the police conduct, and defendant failed to meet his ultimate burden of establishing that the photo array was unduly suggestive ( see, People v. Chipp, 75 N.Y.2d 327, 335, cert denied 498 U.S. 833). Although only one other person depicted in the photo array had hair as long as defendant's, the victim testified that defendant was wearing a hood at the time of the robbery, and there is no indication in the record that defendant's hair was a factor in the victim's identification of defendant. The fact that defendant was photographed at a closer range than the others depicted in the photo array does not render the array unduly suggestive ( see, People v. Brown, 169 A.D.2d 934, 935, lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 958). In any event, the victim viewed defendant from a distance of approximately two feet for at least one minute, and thus there was a sufficient independent basis for the victim's in-court identification of defendant ( see, People v. Saulters, 255 A.D.2d 896, lv denied 92 N.Y.2d 1038).

We reject the contention of defendant that he was denied effective assistance of counsel ( see, People v. Flores, 84 N.Y.2d 184, 189; People v. Rivera, 71 N.Y.2d 705, 708-709). Defendant had two different counsel, one during the pretrial stage and another during the trial. Defendant did not specify which attorney failed to provide effective representation, nor did he identify any conduct that deprived him of a fair trial. Contrary to defendant's contention, the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence ( see, People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 495). The sentence of 25 years to life, based upon defendant's status as a persistent felony offender, is neither unduly harsh nor severe.


Summaries of

People v. Ivey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
May 10, 2000
272 A.D.2d 883 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

People v. Ivey

Case Details

Full title:PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. DAVID IVEY…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: May 10, 2000

Citations

272 A.D.2d 883 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
708 N.Y.S.2d 767

Citing Cases

People v. Umoja

It is axiomatic that the People have the burden of going forward to establish the reasonableness of the…

People v. Dilbert

Supreme Court properly admitted that evidence because it was probative of defendant's motive and intent to…