People v. Ashby

262 A.D.2d 497, 692 N.Y.S.2d 109, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6589
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 14, 1999
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 262 A.D.2d 497 (People v. Ashby) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
People v. Ashby, 262 A.D.2d 497, 692 N.Y.S.2d 109, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6589 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (McKay, J.), rendered April 17, 1996, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress certain identification evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The hearing court properly denied suppression of testimony relating to the lineup identification procedure. While it is true that one of the fillers had a skin tone lighter than that of the defendant, the lineup was otherwise comprised of individuals with similar characteristics. “[T]here is no requirement that a defendant be surrounded by individuals nearly identical in appearance during identification procedures” (People v Leka, 209 AD2d 723, 724). Moreover, the identification procedure was conducted in a nonsuggestive manner.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

[498]*498The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit (see, People v Ladd, 89 NY2d 893; People v Sutton, 209 AD2d 456). Thompson, J. P., Sullivan, Altman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Wilson
493 F. Supp. 2d 364 (E.D. New York, 2006)
Roldan v. Artuz
78 F. Supp. 2d 260 (S.D. New York, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
262 A.D.2d 497, 692 N.Y.S.2d 109, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6589, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ashby-nyappdiv-1999.