PEOPLE v. LEWIS (2000)

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

PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Thomas LEWIS, Sr., Defendant-Appellant.

Decided: November 13, 2000

PRESENT: PINE, J.P., HAYES, WISNER, KEHOE and LAWTON, JJ.

Michael Burger, Rochester, for Defendant-Appellant. David V. Shaw, Canton, for Plaintiff-Respondent.

We reject the contention of defendant that County Court erred in denying his suppression motion following a Wade hearing. The single photograph identification procedure was not unduly suggestive; the police officer's identification of defendant from that photograph two hours after observing defendant during a face-to-face drug transaction was merely confirmatory, and thus there was no need for a Wade hearing (see, People v. Montgomery, 213 A.D.2d 563, 564, 623 N.Y.S.2d 921, affd. 88 N.Y.2d 926, 647 N.Y.S.2d 162, 670 N.E.2d 446; People v. Wharton, 74 N.Y.2d 921, 922-923, 550 N.Y.S.2d 260, 549 N.E.2d 462; People v. Chavys, 263 A.D.2d 964, 965, 695 N.Y.S.2d 438, lv. denied 94 N.Y.2d 821, 702 N.Y.S.2d 591, 724 N.E.2d 383; People v. Miles, 219 A.D.2d 685, 686-687, 631 N.Y.S.2d 727, lv. denied 87 N.Y.2d 905, 641 N.Y.S.2d 234, 663 N.E.2d 1264; 88 N.Y.2d 968, 647 N.Y.S.2d 722, 670 N.E.2d 1354). The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

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Out of date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