People v. Hamlet

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hamlet

180 A.D.2d 819

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

DecidedFebruary 24, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 180 A.D.2d 819 (People v. Hamlet) 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. Hamlet, 180 A.D.2d 819 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeals by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Naro, J.), both rendered September 5, 1989, convicting him of grand larceny in the fourth degree (two counts; one as to each indictment), upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences. The appeals bring up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

Although the defendant testified that he told the arresting officer that he had an attorney and wanted her to be present at a lineup, the hearing court did not believe that he had made such a request and accepted the contrary testimony of the officer, a determination of credibility we find no reason to disturb on this appeal (see, Kirby v Illinois, 406 US 682; People v Coates, 74 NY2d 244; People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759; People v Carter, 166 AD2d 540). Moreover, the defendant’s sentence was not excessive. Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Ritter and Copertino, 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, Queens County (Naro, J.), both rendered September 5, 1989, convicting him of grand larceny in the fourth degree (two counts; one as to each indictment), upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences. The appeals bring up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

Although the defendant testified that he told the arresting officer that he had an attorney and wanted her to be present at a lineup, the hearing court did not believe that he had made such a request and accepted the contrary testimony of the officer, a determination of credibility we find no reason to disturb on this appeal (see, Kirby v Illinois, 406 US 682; People v Coates, 74 NY2d 244; People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759; People v Carter, 166 AD2d 540). Moreover, the defendant’s sentence was not excessive. Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Ritter and Copertino, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

180 A.D.2d 819, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hamlet-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack