People v. Bunker

259 A.D.2d 757, 688 N.Y.S.2d 176, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3194
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 29, 1999
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 259 A.D.2d 757 (People v. Bunker) 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. Bunker, 259 A.D.2d 757, 688 N.Y.S.2d 176, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3194 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Leavitt, J.), rendered February 11, 1997, convicting him of burglary in the second degree (five counts), upon a jury verdict, and sentencing him to consecutive indeterminate terms of 25 years to life imprisonment. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, as a matter of discre[758]*758tion in the interest of justice, by providing that all of the terms of imprisonment shall run concurrently with each other; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, the trial court’s sealing of the courtroom during the jury charge, permitting all of those who had timely arrived to remain in the courtroom, did not constitute a closure of the courtroom requiring specific findings on the record (see, People v Colon, 71 NY2d 410, 417, cert denied 487 US 1239) and did not deprive him of his constitutional right to a public trial (People v Colon, supra, at 418).

Moreover, the showup identification procedure at which the defendant was identified by one of the complainants was reasonable and was not impermissibly suggestive, as it was conducted in close temporal and spatial proximity to the crime (see, People v Duuvon, 77 NY2d 541; People v Riley, 70 NY2d 523; People v Love, 57 NY2d 1023; People v Brnja, 50 NY2d 366).

The sentence is excessive to the extent indicated.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. S. Miller, J. P., Ritter, Thompson and Joy, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Heron
130 A.D.3d 754 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
People v. Bunker
40 A.D.3d 656 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
People v. Sigue
300 A.D.2d 414 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
People v. Stephen
281 A.D.2d 567 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
People v. Feinsod
278 A.D.2d 335 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
People v. Mollo
273 A.D.2d 481 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
People v. Chase
265 A.D.2d 844 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
259 A.D.2d 757, 688 N.Y.S.2d 176, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3194, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-bunker-nyappdiv-1999.