PEOPLE v. DONEGAN (2001)

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

PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Vincent J. DONEGAN, Defendant-Appellant.

Decided: June 08, 2001

PRESENT: PIGOTT, JR., P.J., WISNER, SCUDDER, KEHOE AND BURNS, JJ.

Philip Rothschild, for defendant-appellant. Mark Moody, for plaintiff-respondent.

We reject the contention of defendant that Supreme Court abused its discretion in refusing to permit defendant to cross-examine the officer at the Wade hearing with respect to the circumstances of the crime and the eyewitness's opportunity to view defendant. Defendant consented to a bifurcated hearing to determine initially whether the identification procedure was impermissibly suggestive, and the cross-examination sought by defendant concerned the issue of independent source (see, People v. Chipp, 75 N.Y.2d 327, 335, 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). We further conclude that the court properly denied the motion of defendant to withdraw his plea of guilty (see, People v. Murray, 257 A.D.2d 438, 684 N.Y.S.2d 512, lv. denied 93 N.Y.2d 975, 695 N.Y.S.2d 61, 716 N.E.2d 1106; People v. Clarke, 251 A.D.2d 7, 673 N.Y.S.2d 648).

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Out of date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