People v. Donegan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Donegan

284 A.D.2d 904, 728 N.Y.S.2d 602, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5923

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

DecidedJune 8, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 284 A.D.2d 904 (People v. Donegan) 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. Donegan, 284 A.D.2d 904, 728 N.Y.S.2d 602, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5923 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject the contention of defendant that Supreme Court abused its discretion in refusing to permit defendant to cross-examine the officer at the Wade hearing with respect to the circumstances of the crime and the eyewitness’s opportunity to view defendant. Defendant consented to a bifurcated hearing to determine initially whether the identification procedure was impermissibly suggestive, and the cross-examination sought by defendant concerned the issue of independent source (see, People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 335, cert denied 498 US 833). We further conclude that the court properly denied the motion of defendant to withdraw his plea of guilty (see, People v Murray, 257 AD2d 438, lv denied 93 NY2d 975; People v Clarke, 251 AD2d 7). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Brunetti, J. — Attempted Robbery, 1st Degree.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Wisner, Scudder, Kehoe and Burns, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject the contention of defendant that Supreme Court abused its discretion in refusing to permit defendant to cross-examine the officer at the Wade hearing with respect to the circumstances of the crime and the eyewitness’s opportunity to view defendant. Defendant consented to a bifurcated hearing to determine initially whether the identification procedure was impermissibly suggestive, and the cross-examination sought by defendant concerned the issue of independent source (see, People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 335, cert denied 498 US 833). We further conclude that the court properly denied the motion of defendant to withdraw his plea of guilty (see, People v Murray, 257 AD2d 438, lv denied 93 NY2d 975; People v Clarke, 251 AD2d 7). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Brunetti, J. — Attempted Robbery, 1st Degree.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Wisner, Scudder, Kehoe and Burns, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 A.D.2d 904, 728 N.Y.S.2d 602, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5923, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-donegan-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack