People v. Devon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Devon

184 A.D.2d 322, 585 N.Y.S.2d 36, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8094

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

DecidedJune 16, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 184 A.D.2d 322 (People v. Devon) 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. Devon, 184 A.D.2d 322, 585 N.Y.S.2d 36, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8094 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Andrias, J.), rendered February 10, 1989, convicting defendant after a jury trial of two counts of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to concurrent terms of 13 years to life on each of the first degree robbery counts, and 10 years to life on each of the second degree robbery count and the weapons possession count, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant and an accomplice robbed a limousine chauffeur at gunpoint. An acquaintance of the victim followed the perpetrators, keeping them within sight, until he could alert police patrol officers who immediately apprehended defendant. The codefendant was arrested after a chase, during which he discarded a handgun, which was recovered. The victim and a witness, Pena, made confirmatory identifications within minutes of the arrest.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, and giving due deference to the jury’s findings of credibility under the standards set forth in People v Bleakley [323]*323(69 NY2d 490), defendant’s guilt was proved beyond a reasonable doubt by overwhelming evidence, and the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. The identification procedure was conducted in a manner proximate in time and location to the crime and defendant’s apprehension. In the circumstances, it was not impermissibly suggestive (see, People v Duuvon, 77 NY2d 541, 545). Defendant’s contention that the hearing court failed to render a decision on the suppression motion in contravention of CPL 710.40 (3) is contradicted by the record. The court clearly rendered a decision, prior to trial, but only postponed drafting a full opinion. Defendant failed to preserve, by appropriate objection, any challenges to the prosecutor’s summation comments (People v Balls, 69 NY2d 641), and we decline to review in the interest of justice. We find no basis to disturb the sentencing court’s sound exercise of discretion in imposing sentence (see, People v Farrar, 52 NY2d 302, 305-306).

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Kassal and Smith, JJ„

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Andrias, J.), rendered February 10, 1989, convicting defendant after a jury trial of two counts of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to concurrent terms of 13 years to life on each of the first degree robbery counts, and 10 years to life on each of the second degree robbery count and the weapons possession count, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant and an accomplice robbed a limousine chauffeur at gunpoint. An acquaintance of the victim followed the perpetrators, keeping them within sight, until he could alert police patrol officers who immediately apprehended defendant. The codefendant was arrested after a chase, during which he discarded a handgun, which was recovered. The victim and a witness, Pena, made confirmatory identifications within minutes of the arrest.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, and giving due deference to the jury’s findings of credibility under the standards set forth in People v Bleakley [323]*323(69 NY2d 490), defendant’s guilt was proved beyond a reasonable doubt by overwhelming evidence, and the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. The identification procedure was conducted in a manner proximate in time and location to the crime and defendant’s apprehension. In the circumstances, it was not impermissibly suggestive (see, People v Duuvon, 77 NY2d 541, 545). Defendant’s contention that the hearing court failed to render a decision on the suppression motion in contravention of CPL 710.40 (3) is contradicted by the record. The court clearly rendered a decision, prior to trial, but only postponed drafting a full opinion. Defendant failed to preserve, by appropriate objection, any challenges to the prosecutor’s summation comments (People v Balls, 69 NY2d 641), and we decline to review in the interest of justice. We find no basis to disturb the sentencing court’s sound exercise of discretion in imposing sentence (see, People v Farrar, 52 NY2d 302, 305-306).

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Kassal and Smith, JJ„

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

184 A.D.2d 322, 585 N.Y.S.2d 36, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8094, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-devon-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack