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. Andre JEFFRIES, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Troy K. Webber, J. on suppression and speedy trial motions; Martin Marcus, J. at plea and sentence), rendered March 15, 2005, convicting defendant of assault in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to a term of 14 years to life, unanimously affirmed.
By pleading guilty, defendant forfeited his statutory speedy trial claim (see People v. O'Brien, 56 N.Y.2d 1009, 453 N.Y.S.2d 638, 439 N.E.2d 354 [1982] ). Defendant's constitutional speedy trial claim is improperly raised for the first time in his reply brief (see People v. Napolitano, 282 A.D.2d 49, 53, 724 N.Y.S.2d 702 [2001], lv. denied 96 N.Y.2d 866, 730 N.Y.S.2d 40, 754 N.E.2d 1123 [2001] ) Furthermore, since defendant's speedy trial motion was based entirely on grounds set forth in CPL 30.30 and did not raise a constitutional issue, his constitutional claim is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject it on the merits (see People v. Taranovich, 37 N.Y.2d 442, 373 N.Y.S.2d 79, 335 N.E.2d 303 [1975] ).
The court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress a showup identification made at the scene of the crime. While the transcript of the hearing is apparently lost, we conclude, based on the hearing court's detailed findings, that the showup was not unduly suggestive. Defendant's sole argument is that the arresting officer “whispered” something to the victim prior to the identification. However, the hearing court's findings indicated that the officer merely asked the victim whether she could identify the person who assaulted her.
Defendant's procedural challenges to his persistent violent felony offender adjudication are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject them on the merits.
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: May 19, 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)