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, etc., respondent, v. Anthony PUCKETT, appellant.
Appeal by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rotker, J.), both rendered April 27, 1998, convicting him of robbery in the first degree under Indictment Number 3023/96, and robbery in the first degree under Indictment Number 3034/96, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences. The appeals bring up for review the denial, after a hearing, (O'Dwyer, J.H.O., findings of fact and conclusions of law; Schulman, J., on the order), of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.
ORDERED that the judgments are reversed, on the law, the pleas are vacated, and the matters are remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings consistent herewith, including an independent source hearing under Indictment Number 3034/96.
We agree with the defendant that, due to dissimilarities between him and the lineup fillers, the lineup procedure with regard to Indictment Number 3034/96 was unduly suggestive (see, People v. Owens, 74 N.Y.2d 677, 543 N.Y.S.2d 371, 541 N.E.2d 400; People v. Murphy, 260 A.D.2d 505, 686 N.Y.S.2d 332). Thus, because the People did not have an opportunity to establish the existence of an independent source, if any, for the store patron's in-court identification of the defendant, further proceedings, including an independent source hearing, are required (see, People v. Burts, 78 N.Y.2d 20, 571 N.Y.S.2d 418, 574 N.E.2d 1024).
Both judgments are reversed since the defendant's pleas of guilty with respect to both indictments were conditioned on the negotiated agreement that he would receive concurrent sentences (see, People v. Clark, 45 N.Y.2d 432, 408 N.Y.S.2d 463, 380 N.E.2d 290; People v. Panetta, 250 A.D.2d 710, 673 N.Y.S.2d 434).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
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: March 13, 2000
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)