People v. Franklin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Franklin

232 A.D.2d 577, 648 N.Y.S.2d 986, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10387

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 21, 1996·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

—Appeals by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Mastro, J.), both rendered July 8, 1993, convicting him of attempted robbery in the second degree under Indictment No. 10835/92 and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree under Indictment No. 8644/92, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences. The appeals bring up for review the denial under Indictment No. 10835/92, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion to suppress identification testimony (see, People v Coleman, 214 AD2d 619). The defendant’s right to appellate review of his remaining contention regarding an alleged violation of his right to testify before the Grand Jury was forfeited by his plea of guilty (see, People v Ferrara, 99 AD2d 257). Mangano, P. J., Rosenblatt, Sullivan and Hart, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeals by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Mastro, J.), both rendered July 8, 1993, convicting him of attempted robbery in the second degree under Indictment No. 10835/92 and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree under Indictment No. 8644/92, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences. The appeals bring up for review the denial under Indictment No. 10835/92, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion to suppress identification testimony (see, People v Coleman, 214 AD2d 619). The defendant’s right to appellate review of his remaining contention regarding an alleged violation of his right to testify before the Grand Jury was forfeited by his plea of guilty (see, People v Ferrara, 99 AD2d 257). Mangano, P. J., Rosenblatt, Sullivan and Hart, JJ., concur.

People v. Franklin, 232 A.D.2d 577, 648 N.Y.S.2d 986, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10387 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

232 A.D.2d 577 (People v. Franklin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related