From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pople v. Mack

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 27, 1997
243 A.D.2d 731 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

October 27, 1997

Appeal from County Court, Nassau County (Calabrese, J.)


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the photographic array and the lineup from which the victim identified him were unduly suggestive, and therefore that the hearing court erred in denying his motion to suppress. The defendant's contentions are without merit.

The general rule is that a photographic array is deemed to be suggestive when some characteristic of one picture draws the viewer's attention to that picture, indicating that the police have made a particular selection ( see, People v. Robert, 184 A.D.2d 597, 598; People v. Emmons, 123 A.D.2d 475, 476). Despite the defendant's focus on the differences between the photographs, we are satisfied upon this record that there are sufficient similarities between the photographs to establish that the procedure was not suggestive ( see, People v. Gettys, 162 A.D.2d 963; People v. Dubois, 140 A.D.2d 619). In addition, the mere fact that a detective told the victim beforehand that a suspect had been arrested did not render the otherwise proper photographic array suggestive ( see, People v. Rodriguez, 64 N.Y.2d 738; People v Smith, 140 A.D.2d 647).

Similarly, the lineup was not unduly suggestive. There was a sufficient degree of resemblance between the fillers and the defendant to render the lineup proper ( see, People v. Rosado, 222 A.D.2d 617; People v. Livieri, 171 A.D.2d 815; People v. Allah, 158 A.D.2d 605). Significantly, neither of the two defense attorneys who were present at the lineup raised any objection to the fillers or the procedure used in conducting the lineup ( see, People v. Brown, 169 A.D.2d 528).

The defendant further contends that the court erred in denying his application to withdraw his plea of guilty. We disagree. The defendant, who was well-experienced with the criminal justice system, voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently pleaded guilty ( see, People v. Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9), and he failed to put forth any satisfactory rationale to support his application to withdraw that plea ( see, People v. Walters, 176 A.D.2d 277; People v Pettway, 140 A.D.2d 721; People v. Melendez, 135 A.D.2d 660).

Finally, the record does not support the defendant's contention that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel ( see, People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137; People v. Candelaria, 139 A.D.2d 752).

O'Brien, J.P., Thompson, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Pople v. Mack

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 27, 1997
243 A.D.2d 731 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

Pople v. Mack

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. RONALD MACK, Appellant

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

Date published: Oct 27, 1997

Citations

243 A.D.2d 731 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
665 N.Y.S.2d 529