PEOPLE v. SILER (2007)

 On appeal from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial of, inter alia, robbery in the second degree (Penal Law § 160.10 [1] ), defendant contends that County Court erred in refusing to suppress the identification testimony of the robbery victim on the ground that the showup identification procedure was unduly suggestive.   We reject that contention.   The showup identification procedure was conducted in geographic and temporal proximity to the robbery (see People v. Ortiz, 90 N.Y.2d 533, 537, 664 N.Y.S.2d 243, 686 N.E.2d 1337;  People v. Duuvon, 77 N.Y.2d 541, 543-544, 569 N.Y.S.2d 346, 571 N.E.2d 654), and the fact that defendant was standing next to a police officer with a spotlight on him during the showup does not render it unduly suggestive (see People v. Delarosa, 28 A.D.3d 1186, 1187, 813 N.Y.S.2d 610, lv. denied 7 N.Y.3d 811, 822 N.Y.S.2d 486, 855 N.E.2d 802;  see also People v. Robinson, 8 A.D.3d 1028, 778 N.Y.S.2d 808, affd. 5 N.Y.3d 738, 800 N.Y.S.2d 369, 833 N.E.2d 704).   In any event, any error in admitting the victim's identification testimony is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v. Davis, 15 A.D.3d 930, 931, 788 N.Y.S.2d 782, lv. denied 5 N.Y.3d 761, 801 N.Y.S.2d 255, 834 N.E.2d 1265).   Defendant admitted at trial that he committed the robbery of the victim, and thus “identification was not at issue at trial” (id.).

Finally, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's request for youthful offender status (see generally People v. Smith, 286 A.D.2d 878, 730 N.Y.S.2d 893, lv. denied 98 N.Y.2d 641, 744 N.Y.S.2d 770, 771 N.E.2d 843), and the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: