Opinion
1207 KA 11-01866
11-14-2014
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Rayshawn JOHNSON, Defendant–Appellant.
Frank H. Hiscock Legal Aid Society, Syracuse (Kristen McDermott of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. William J. Fitzpatrick, District Attorney, Syracuse (Maria Maldonado of Counsel), for Respondent.
Frank H. Hiscock Legal Aid Society, Syracuse (Kristen McDermott of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant.
William J. Fitzpatrick, District Attorney, Syracuse (Maria Maldonado of Counsel), for Respondent.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CENTRA, FAHEY, LINDLEY AND WHALEN, JJ.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM:Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of, inter alia, attempted robbery in the first degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 160.15[3] ). We reject defendant's contention that the showup identification procedures were unduly suggestive. The suppression court found that defendant was not in handcuffs at the time of the showup identification procedures, and we see no basis to disturb the court's findings (see generally People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761, 395 N.Y.S.2d 635, 363 N.E.2d 1380 ). In any event, as Supreme Court further concluded, the showup identification procedures were not rendered unduly suggestive even if defendant was in handcuffs and in the presence of uniformed police officers (see People v. Santiago, 83 A.D.3d 1471, 1471, 919 N.Y.S.2d 750, lv. denied 17 N.Y.3d 800, 929 N.Y.S.2d 108, 952 N.E.2d 1103 ; People v. Davis, 48 A.D.3d 1120, 1122, 851 N.Y.S.2d 320, lv. denied 10 N.Y.3d 957, 863 N.Y.S.2d 141, 893 N.E.2d 447 ). The showup identification procedures were conducted in geographic and temporal proximity to the crime, and the procedures used were not unduly suggestive (see People v. Brisco, 99 N.Y.2d 596, 597, 758 N.Y.S.2d 262, 788 N.E.2d 611 ; People v. Williams, 118 A.D.3d 1478, 1479, 988 N.Y.S.2d 381 ). Contrary to defendant's further contention, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.