PEOPLE v. HALL

Reset A A Font size: Print

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

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Roger HALL, Appellant.

Decided: September 21, 1998

Before ROSENBLATT, J.P., and O'BRIEN, ALTMAN and FRIEDMANN, JJ. Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Erica Horwitz of counsel), for appellant. Appellant pro se. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, and Joyce J. Sun of counsel), for respondent.

Appeals by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Thomas, J.), rendered June 12, 1996, convicting him of robbery in the second degree (two counts), criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence, and (2) a resentence of the same court, imposed March 4, 1997, modifying the sentence imposed upon the conviction of robbery in the second degree under counts one and two of the indictment.   The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Corrado, J.), of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence and identification testimony.

ORDERED that the judgment and the resentence are affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the physical evidence was properly admitted as it was obtained pursuant to a lawful arrest (see, People v. McRay, 51 N.Y.2d 594, 602, 435 N.Y.S.2d 679, 416 N.E.2d 1015;  People v. De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d 210, 386 N.Y.S.2d 375, 352 N.E.2d 562;  People v. Ortiz, 229 A.D.2d 451, 644 N.Y.S.2d 794).   Moreover, the showup identification procedure, in which the victim identified the defendant in close temporal and spatial proximity to the crime, was reasonable and not unduly suggestive (see, People v. Duuvon, 77 N.Y.2d 541, 569 N.Y.S.2d 346, 571 N.E.2d 654;  People v. Love, 57 N.Y.2d 1023, 457 N.Y.S.2d 474, 443 N.E.2d 948;  People v. Brnja, 50 N.Y.2d 366, 429 N.Y.S.2d 173, 406 N.E.2d 1066).

The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his pro se supplemental brief, are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Copied to clipboard