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. Diomedez MADRIGAL, also known as Rafael Epifanio Pujols, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William Leibovitz, J. at hearing; Renee A. White, J. at jury trial and sentence), rendered February 10, 2000, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts) and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and sentencing him to two consecutive terms of 7 1/212 to 15 years concurrent with a term of 3 1/212 to 7 years, and order, same court (Renee A. White, J.), entered on or about April 28, 2004, which denied defendant's CPL 440.10 motion to vacate the judgment, unanimously affirmed.
The court properly denied defendant's suppression motion. Given the totality of circumstances, the delay in the officer's identification of defendant did not render that identification unduly suggestive (see People v. Reyes, 256 A.D.2d 242, 682 N.Y.S.2d 190 [1998], lv. denied 93 N.Y.2d 928, 693 N.Y.S.2d 512, 715 N.E.2d 515 [1999] ). The officer's hearing testimony also established that he had an independent source for his in-court identification of defendant.
Defendant received effective assistance of counsel (see People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 713-714, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584 [1998]; see also Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 [1984] ). The court, which made detailed findings that are supported by the record, properly denied defendant's motion to vacate judgment (see People v. Satterfield, 66 N.Y.2d 796, 799-800, 497 N.Y.S.2d 903, 488 N.E.2d 834 [1985] ).
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: April 19, 2005
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)