From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Smith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 29, 2002
293 A.D.2d 764 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

1999-09237

Submitted April 5, 2002.

April 29, 2002.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Zambelli, J.), rendered August 17, 1999, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, without a hearing (Lange, J.), of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

James T. Meyer, Hawthorne, N.Y., for appellant.

Jeanine Pirro, District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Thomas K. Chong and Valerie A. Livingston of counsel), for respondent.

Before: CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, J.P., WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, SANDRA L. TOWNES, JJ.


ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that his conviction should be reversed because of an alleged jurisdictional defect in the felony complaint is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05). In any event, the contention is without merit. Even if the felony complaint was defective, it was superseded by a valid indictment (see People v. Wilkens, 176 A.D.2d 978).

Furthermore, the court properly denied, without a Wade hearing (see United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218), the defendant's motion to suppress the identification testimony of the undercover officer who purchased cocaine from him. The undercover officer's photo identification of the defendant within one-half hour of the drug sale was an integral part of proper police procedure (see People v. Banks, 242 A.D.2d 726; People v. Miles, 219 A.D.2d 685; People v. Montgomery, 213 A.D.2d 563, affd 88 N.Y.2d 926). Accordingly, the court permissibly summarily determined that the identification was merely confirmatory (see People v. Wharton, 74 N.Y.2d 921).

Finally, the defendant was afforded the effective assistance of counsel. The record indicates that defense counsel implemented a reasonable defense strategy throughout all phases of the proceedings (see People v. Hobot, 84 N.Y.2d 1021, 1022).

O'BRIEN, J.P., FRIEDMANN, SCHMIDT and TOWNES, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Smith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 29, 2002
293 A.D.2d 764 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

People v. Smith

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, ETC., respondent, v. JAMES SMITH, appellant

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

Date published: Apr 29, 2002

Citations

293 A.D.2d 764 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
741 N.Y.S.2d 448

Citing Cases

State v. James

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed. The record of the pretrial Wade hearing ( see United States v Wade,…

People v. Wheeler

he officer] was experienced and expected to observe carefully the defendant for purposes of later…