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. Hokeelho BAILEY, appellant.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Mangano, Jr., J.), rendered February 28, 2012, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts) and attempted robbery in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Chun, J.), of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the People's contention, the record does not demonstrate that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see People v. Bradshaw, 18 NY3d 257, 267; People v. Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 257; People v. Callahan, 80 N.Y.2d 273; People Pressley, 116 AD3d 794, 795–796). Accordingly, in the absence of a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of the right to appeal, the defendant retained his right to challenge the denial of that branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony (see CPL 710.20[2]; People v. Crawford, 110 AD3d 916, 916; People v. Jacob, 94 AD3d 1142, 1144).
Nevertheless, the hearing court properly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony. “[T]he purpose of the Wade hearing [see United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218] is to test identification testimony for taint arising from official suggestion during ‘police-arranged confrontations between a defendant and an eyewitness' “ (People v.. Dixon, 85 N.Y.2d 218, 222 quoting People v. Gissendanner, 48 N.Y.2d 543, 552). Here, the People established in the first instance that the lineup was not improper, and the defendant failed to establish that the procedure was unduly suggestive (see People v. Jackson, 98 N.Y.2d 555, 559; People v. Chipp, 75 N.Y.2d 327, 335–336; People v. Currie, 117 AD3d 1074, 1075). Accordingly, the hearing court properly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: October 15, 2014
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)