People v. Hamant

2018 NY Slip Op 4427
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 14, 2018
Docket6870 126/13
StatusPublished

This text of 2018 NY Slip Op 4427 (People v. Hamant) 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. Hamant, 2018 NY Slip Op 4427 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2018).

Opinion

People v Hamant (2018 NY Slip Op 04427)
People v Hamant
2018 NY Slip Op 04427
Decided on June 14, 2018
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided on June 14, 2018
Acosta, P.J., Manzanet-Daniels, Tom, Mazzarelli, Moulton, JJ.

6870 126/13

[*1]The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

v

Joucoo Hamant, Defendant-Appellant.


Seymour W. James, Jr., The Legal Aid Society, New York (Svetlana M. Kornfeind of counsel), for appellant.

Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Stephen Kress of counsel), for respondent.



Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles H. Solomon, J. at suppression motion; Eduardo Padró, J. at plea and sentencing), rendered December 17, 2014, convicting defendant of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree and criminal sale of marijuana in the fourth degree, and sentencing him to time served, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant entered into a judicial diversion program agreement, and two associated agreements, under which he explicitly agreed to waive his rights to pretrial hearings in the event that he failed to complete the program and was required to proceed to trial. We find that this waiver encompasses his claim that he was entitled to a Wade hearing, which the motion court had previously denied.

In any event, the motion court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress identification testimony, without granting a Wade hearing, because the information presented to the court clearly established that the identification was confirmatory under the principles set forth in People v Wharton (74 NY2d 921 [1989]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: JUNE 14, 2018

CLERK



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

Related

People v. Wharton
549 N.E.2d 462 (New York Court of Appeals, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2018 NY Slip Op 4427, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hamant-nyappdiv-2018.