PEOPLE v. COLEMAN (1997)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Gerald COLEMAN, Appellant.

Decided: September 30, 1997

Before LAWTON, J.P., and HAYES, BOEHM and FALLON, JJ.

Edward J. Nowak by Elizabeth Clarke, Rochester, for appellant. Howard R. Relin by Loretta Courtney, Rochester, for respondent.

The record fails to establish that defendant's waiver of the right to appeal was voluntary, knowing and intelligent (see, People v. Veaudry, 133 A.D.2d 524, 519 N.Y.S.2d 895, lv. denied 70 N.Y.2d 804, 522 N.Y.S.2d 122, 516 N.E.2d 1235; see generally, People v. Ramos, 152 A.D.2d 209, 548 N.Y.S.2d 166). We reject the contention of defendant, however, that Supreme Court erred in denying his motion to suppress the showup identification (see, People v. Duuvon, 77 N.Y.2d 541, 569 N.Y.S.2d 346, 571 N.E.2d 654; People v. Love, 57 N.Y.2d 1023, 457 N.Y.S.2d 474, 443 N.E.2d 948). Defendant was apprehended within a block of the robbery and transported to the scene of the crime within 20 minutes of its commission. Based upon the spacial and temporal proximity of the showup identification to the commission of the crime, we conclude that it was not unduly suggestive (see, People v. Duuvon, supra, at 544-545, 569 N.Y.S.2d 346, 571 N.E.2d 654; People v. Hicks, 68 N.Y.2d 234, 242-243, 508 N.Y.S.2d 163, 500 N.E.2d 861; People v. Love, supra).

Judgment unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM:

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network