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. Keevlin STEPHENS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Alvin Schlesinger, J.), rendered December 20, 1996, convicting defendant, after a non-jury trial, of attempted sodomy in the first degree and sexual abuse in the first degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 2 to 6 years and 1 to 3 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.
Defendant's motion to suppress identification testimony was properly denied. The five fillers in the lineup were sufficiently similar in appearance to defendant that they did not create a substantial likelihood defendant would be singled out for identification (see, People v. Chipp, 75 N.Y.2d 327, 336, 553 N.Y.S.2d 72, 552 N.E.2d 608, cert. denied 498 U.S. 833, 111 S.Ct. 99, 112 L.Ed.2d 70). The variation in skin tone among the various members of the lineup was not significant, and the lineup photograph does not substantiate his claim of suggestiveness with respect to the manner in which defendant was dressed.
The existing record, which defendant has not sought to amplify by way of a CPL 440.10 motion, establishes that counsel provided meaningful representation (see, People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 146-147, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400), and counsel's decisions regarding elicitation of defendant's prior conviction were strategically plausible and non-prejudicial in the context of a nonjury trial (see, People v. Samuels, 240 A.D.2d 303, 659 N.Y.S.2d 751, lv. denied 91 N.Y.2d 879, 668 N.Y.S.2d 578, 691 N.E.2d 650; People v. Watson, 162 A.D.2d 360, 557 N.Y.S.2d 29).
Defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review it, we would reject it.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: October 13, 1998
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)