Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Richard TRAMBLE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (John Cataldo, J. at hearing; Arlene D. Goldberg, J. at jury trial and sentence), rendered September 18, 2007, convicting defendant of robbery in the second degree and assault in the second degree, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 5 years, unanimously affirmed.
The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348-49, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 [2007] ). There is no basis for disturbing the jury's determinations concerning credibility.
The court properly denied defendant's suppression motion. The showup identification, made in close temporal and geographic proximity to the crime, was not unduly suggestive (see People v. Duuvon, 77 N.Y.2d 541, 544-45, 569 N.Y.S.2d 346, 571 N.E.2d 654 [1991] ). The showup was not rendered suggestive by the fact that defendant was in handcuffs and guarded by officers when viewed by the victim (see e.g. People v. Gatling, 38 A.D.3d 239, 240, 831 N.Y.S.2d 157 [2007], lv. denied 9 N.Y.3d 865, 840 N.Y.S.2d 894, 872 N.E.2d 1200 [2007] ). Defendant's distinctive appearance did not render the showup suggestive; if anything, it enhanced the reliability of the victim's identification.
The imposition of mandatory surcharges and fees by way of court documents, but without mention in the court's oral pronouncement of sentence, was lawful (see People v. Guerrero, 12 N.Y.3d 45, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, ---N.E.2d ---- [2009] ).
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
Thank you for your feedback!
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.
Decided: March 10, 2009
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)