From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Tillman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 14, 1989
147 A.D.2d 599 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Opinion

February 14, 1989

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Gallagher, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law and the facts, the plea is vacated, that branch of the defendant's motion which was to suppress identification testimony is granted to the extent that the pretrial identification of the defendant by the complainant and Donald Butler and the in-court identification of the defendant by Donald Butler are suppressed, and the case is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings.

The hearing court erred in refusing to suppress testimony by the complainant, and an eyewitness, Donald Butler, regarding the showup identifications which occurred at the station house, as the People failed to establish that such procedures were warranted by exigent circumstances (see, People v Riley, 70 N.Y.2d 523; People v Guillermo, 137 A.D.2d 832). Furthermore, the evidence adduced was insufficient to establish an independent basis for the in-court identification by Butler. While an independent basis existed for the complainant's in-court identification, reversal is still required because, on this record, we are unable to determine what effect, if any, the erroneous refusal to suppress some of the identification testimony may have had on the defendant's decision to plead guilty (see, People v Coles, 62 N.Y.2d 908; People v Guillermo, supra).

With respect to the defendant's contentions concerning the validity of his plea of guilty, however, reversal is not required on the ground that the defendant's factual allocution was legally insufficient, as that issue has not been preserved for appellate review (see, People v Pellegrino, 60 N.Y.2d 636; People v Wages, 111 A.D.2d 198), and the defendant's right to challenge the factual allocution was forfeited when the defendant pleaded guilty to a lesser included offense (see, People v Pelchat, 62 N.Y.2d 97, 108; People v Mazzilli, 125 A.D.2d 602).

In light of the foregoing, we need not address the defendant's contention that the sentence imposed was excessive. Mollen, P.J., Mangano, Brown and Sullivan, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Tillman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 14, 1989
147 A.D.2d 599 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
Case details for

People v. Tillman

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. GEORGE TILLMAN…

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

Date published: Feb 14, 1989

Citations

147 A.D.2d 599 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
537 N.Y.S.2d 894

Citing Cases

People v. Serrano

We note the record reflects that a sentence of 1 1/2 to 4 years was imposed for defendant's violation of…

People v. Moore

The defendant's intent could clearly be inferred from his conduct (see, People v. Bracey, 41 N.Y.2d 296;…