PEOPLE v. RAPLEY (2009)

In appeal No. 1, defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of manslaughter in the first degree (Penal Law § 125.20[2] ) and, in appeal No. 2, he appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of two counts of robbery in the first degree (§ 160.15 [4] ).   Even assuming, arguendo, that the waiver by defendant of the right to appeal was not voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently entered and thus that his contentions in each appeal with respect to County Court's suppression rulings are properly before us, we conclude that those contentions lack merit.   Contrary to defendant's contentions, the identification procedure was not unduly suggestive (see People v. Dunlap, 9 A.D.3d 434, 435-436, 780 N.Y.S.2d 171, lv. denied 3 N.Y.3d 739, 786 N.Y.S.2d 819, 820 N.E.2d 298), and the People met their burden at the Huntley hearing of establishing that defendant's written statements were not the product of “improper police conduct” (People v. Rosado, 222 A.D.2d 617, 618, 635 N.Y.S.2d 286, lv. denied 88 N.Y.2d 853, 644 N.Y.S.2d 699, 667 N.E.2d 349).   Defendant “ ‘presented no bona fide factual predicate’ in support of his conclusory speculation that his statement[s were] coerced” (People v. Fisher, 19 A.D.3d 1034, 1034, 796 N.Y.S.2d 475, lv. denied 5 N.Y.3d 805, 803 N.Y.S.2d 34, 836 N.E.2d 1157, quoting People v. Witherspoon, 66 N.Y.2d 973, 974, 498 N.Y.S.2d 789, 489 N.E.2d 758).   Finally, we conclude that the sentence imposed in each appeal is not unduly harsh or severe.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: