PEOPLE v. TORRES (2008)

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Collini, J.), rendered May 3, 2005, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and assault in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.   The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of those branches of the defendant's omnibus motion which were to suppress identification testimony and a statement made by him to law enforcement officials.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

 Contrary to the defendant's contention, the hearing court properly denied those branches of his omnibus motion which were to suppress identification testimony and a statement made by him to law enforcement officials, since the police possessed probable cause to arrest him (see People v. Griffin, 15 A.D.3d 502, 790 N.Y.S.2d 494;  People v. Soto, 279 A.D.2d 592, 719 N.Y.S.2d 603;  People v. Burton, 194 A.D.2d 683, 684, 599 N.Y.S.2d 108).

 Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.   The victim's criminal record, history of drug use, and explanations regarding his previous arrests were matters fully explored at trial and did not render his testimony incredible as a matter of law, but merely raised an issue of credibility for the jury to consider (see People v. Smith, 302 A.D.2d 615, 616, 756 N.Y.S.2d 255;   People v. Pagan, 291 A.D.2d 509, 510, 738 N.Y.S.2d 233;  People v. Toro, 272 A.D.2d 351, 707 N.Y.S.2d 876).   Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power (see CPL 470.15[5] ), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902).

 The trial court did not violate the defendant's right of confrontation (see Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177) in admitting at a joint trial the prior statement of a nontestifying codefendant against that codefendant only (see United States v. Lung Fong Chen, 393 F.3d 139, 150).   Moreover, the defendant's confrontation rights were properly safeguarded by the measures taken by the court in admitting the statement (see People v. Bowen, 309 A.D.2d 600, 765 N.Y.S.2d 612;  People v. Timberlake, 300 A.D.2d 219, 752 N.Y.S.2d 315;  People v. Chalk, 199 A.D.2d 813, 606 N.Y.S.2d 386;  People v. Borgos, 168 A.D.2d 628, 563 N.Y.S.2d 105).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).