People v. Gilliard

116 A.D.2d 657
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 21, 1986
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 116 A.D.2d 657 (People v. Gilliard) 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. Gilliard, 116 A.D.2d 657 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Martin, J.), rendered June 30, 1983, convicting him of attempted [658]*658murder in the second degree, attempted robbery in the first degree (two counts), and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of defendant’s motion to suppress identification testimony.

Judgment affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and find that the suppression court properly concluded that the hospital room showup was not improper under the circumstances (see, People v Soto, 87 AD2d 618). In such instances, one-on-one confrontations which occur in close spatial and temporal proximity to the crime are indicative of good police work aimed at apprehending the perpetrator and releasing innocent suspects as soon as possible, as the witness’s memory is most fresh at that time (see, People v Love, 57 NY2d 1023; People v Cole, 100 AD2d 442; People v Brnja, 70 AD2d 17, affd 50 NY2d 366). Moreover, in the case at bar, the People proved by clear and convincing evidence that there was a reliable independent source for each witness’s identification of defendant (see, Manson v Brathwaite, 432 US 98).

There is also no merit to defendant’s claim that the sentencing court erroneously adjudicated him a second felony offender. He failed to prove by substantial evidence that the prior conviction based upon his guilty plea was unconstitutionally obtained (see, People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9, 15).

We have considered appellant’s pro se argument that the sentence imposed was excessive and find it to be without merit. Mollen, P. J., Niehoff, Rubin and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Walnut
224 A.D.2d 463 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
People v. Mitchell
185 A.D.2d 249 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
People v. Hilton
148 A.D.2d 749 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
People v. Smith
142 A.D.2d 618 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)
People v. McLamb
140 A.D.2d 717 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)
People v. Milza
140 A.D.2d 718 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)
People v. Perez
135 A.D.2d 582 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)
People v. Davis
134 A.D.2d 510 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)
People v. Thompson
129 A.D.2d 655 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)
People v. Person
125 A.D.2d 610 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
116 A.D.2d 657, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-gilliard-nyappdiv-1986.