People v. Crenshaw

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Crenshaw

275 A.D.2d 420, 712 N.Y.S.2d 879, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8825

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedAugust 21, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 275 A.D.2d 420 (People v. Crenshaw) 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. Crenshaw, 275 A.D.2d 420, 712 N.Y.S.2d 879, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8825 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Tomei, J.), rendered January 26, 1998, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts), 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 identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the lineup procedure was not unduly suggestive and the witnesses’ pretrial lineup identification was properly admitted (cf., People v Owens, 74 NY2d 677). Thus, the failure of the defendant’s trial counsel to move to reopen the suppression hearing did not amount to ineffective assistance of counsel (see, CPL 710.40). Under the circumstances of this case, the defendant received meaningful representation (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137). Santucci, J. P., S. Miller, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Tomei, J.), rendered January 26, 1998, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts), 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 identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the lineup procedure was not unduly suggestive and the witnesses’ pretrial lineup identification was properly admitted (cf., People v Owens, 74 NY2d 677). Thus, the failure of the defendant’s trial counsel to move to reopen the suppression hearing did not amount to ineffective assistance of counsel (see, CPL 710.40). Under the circumstances of this case, the defendant received meaningful representation (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137). Santucci, J. P., S. Miller, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 A.D.2d 420, 712 N.Y.S.2d 879, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8825, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-crenshaw-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack