People v. Dixon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Dixon

136 A.D.3d 480, 25 N.Y.S.3d 152

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

DecidedFebruary 9, 2016

Docket181 815/12

StatusPublished

This text of 136 A.D.3d 480 (People v. Dixon) 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. Dixon, 136 A.D.3d 480, 25 N.Y.S.3d 152 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bruce Allen, J., at hearing; Jill Konviser, J., at jury trial and sentencing), rendered April 12, 2013, convicting defendant of robbery in the third degree, grand larceny in the fourth degree, tampering with physical evidence and resisting arrest, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 2 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress a showup identification. The prompt showup was not unduly suggestive under the totality of circumstances. As police officers and a victim drove toward the location where defendant was being held by other officers, an officer using a tracking application to locate the victim’s stolen phone remarked that they were “close,” or “getting closer.” This did not necessarily inform the victim that she was about to see the person who had her phone, and the victim did not learn about the recovery of her phone from defendant until after she had made an identification. In any event, “[inherent in any showup is the likelihood that an identifying witness will realize that the police are displaying a person they suspect of committing the crime, rather than a person selected at random” (People v Gatling, 38 AD3d 239, 240 [1st Dept 2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 865 [2007]).

The court also properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress a lineup identification made by another victim. The record, including a lineup photograph, supports the hearing court’s finding that even though defendant was the youngest participant, the lineup participants were sufficiently similar in appearance that defendant was not singled out for identification (see People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 336 [1990], cert denied 498 US 833 [1990]).

Defendant did not preserve his other claims regarding the lineup, or his challenges to the evidence supporting the tampering conviction, to the prosecutor’s summation, and to the court’s charge, and we reject defendant’s various arguments with respect to the need for preservation. We decline to review these unpreserved claims in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find no basis for reversal.

Concur — Friedman, J.P, Acosta, Andrias, Saxe and Feinman, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bruce Allen, J., at hearing; Jill Konviser, J., at jury trial and sentencing), rendered April 12, 2013, convicting defendant of robbery in the third degree, grand larceny in the fourth degree, tampering with physical evidence and resisting arrest, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 2 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress a showup identification. The prompt showup was not unduly suggestive under the totality of circumstances. As police officers and a victim drove toward the location where defendant was being held by other officers, an officer using a tracking application to locate the victim’s stolen phone remarked that they were “close,” or “getting closer.” This did not necessarily inform the victim that she was about to see the person who had her phone, and the victim did not learn about the recovery of her phone from defendant until after she had made an identification. In any event, “[inherent in any showup is the likelihood that an identifying witness will realize that the police are displaying a person they suspect of committing the crime, rather than a person selected at random” (People v Gatling, 38 AD3d 239, 240 [1st Dept 2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 865 [2007]).

The court also properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress a lineup identification made by another victim. The record, including a lineup photograph, supports the hearing court’s finding that even though defendant was the youngest participant, the lineup participants were sufficiently similar in appearance that defendant was not singled out for identification (see People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 336 [1990], cert denied 498 US 833 [1990]).

Defendant did not preserve his other claims regarding the lineup, or his challenges to the evidence supporting the tampering conviction, to the prosecutor’s summation, and to the court’s charge, and we reject defendant’s various arguments with respect to the need for preservation. We decline to review these unpreserved claims in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find no basis for reversal.

Concur — Friedman, J.P, Acosta, Andrias, Saxe and Feinman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

136 A.D.3d 480, 25 N.Y.S.3d 152, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-dixon-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack