People v. Font

223 A.D.2d 600, 637 N.Y.S.2d 16, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 213
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 16, 1996
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 223 A.D.2d 600 (People v. Font) 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. Font, 223 A.D.2d 600, 637 N.Y.S.2d 16, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 213 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Tomei, J.), rendered April 25, 1994, 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 (Firetog, J.), of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment and amended judgment are affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the court failed to require the People to provide race-neutral explanations for their peremptory challenges to certain jurors during the first two rounds of voir dire, after the court ruled in the third round that a prima facie case of discrimination was established, is unpreserved for review, as the defense never requested [601]*601explanations for the challenges exercised, during the first two rounds (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Negron, 214 AD2d 588; People v Bosquez, 211 AD2d 727; People v Cruz, 200 AD2d 581).

The hearing court properly declined to suppress the identification testimony of the eyewitnesses, as the photographic array was not unduly suggestive and did not draw the viewer’s attention to the defendant’s photograph (see, People v Jones, 166 AD2d 724; People v Thomas, 147 AD2d 510, 512).

The defendant’s contention that his confession was not voluntary because he was hospitalized and unable to comprehend and appreciate the nature of his statements is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Thompson, J. P., Friedmann, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Lugo
69 A.D.3d 654 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
People v. Patterson
40 A.D.3d 659 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
People v. Baxter
15 A.D.3d 671 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
In re Jaquan C.
282 A.D.2d 456 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
People v. Figueroa
276 A.D.2d 561 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Caston v. Costello
74 F. Supp. 2d 262 (E.D. New York, 1999)
People v. Price
256 A.D.2d 596 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
People v. Caston
239 A.D.2d 355 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
223 A.D.2d 600, 637 N.Y.S.2d 16, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 213, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-font-nyappdiv-1996.