People v. Jeffries

62 A.D.3d 530, 879 N.Y.S.2d 118
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 19, 2009
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 62 A.D.3d 530 (People v. Jeffries) 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. Jeffries, 62 A.D.3d 530, 879 N.Y.S.2d 118 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Troy K. Webber, J, on suppression and speedy trial motions; Martin Marcus, J., at plea and sentence), rendered March 15, 2005, convicting defendant of assault in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to a term of 14 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

By pleading guilty, defendant forfeited his statutory speedy trial claim (see People v O'Brien, 56 NY2d 1009 [1982]). Defendant’s constitutional speedy trial claim is improperly raised for the first time in his reply brief (see People v Napolitano, 282 AD2d 49, 53 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 866 [2001]) Furthermore, since defendant’s speedy trial motion was based entirely on grounds set forth in CEL 30.30 and did not raise a constitutional issue, his constitutional claim is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject it on the merits (see People v Taranovich, 37 NY2d 442 [1975]).

The court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress a showup identification made at the scene of the crime. While the transcript of the hearing is apparently lost, we conclude, based on the hearing court’s detailed findings, that the showup was not unduly suggestive. Defendant’s sole argument is that the arresting officer “whispered” something to the victim prior to the identification. However, the hearing court’s findings indicated that the officer merely asked the victim whether she could identify the person who assaulted her.

Defendant’s procedural challenges to his persistent violent felony offender adjudication are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject them on the merits. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Sweeny, Nardelli and Freedman, JJ.

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

Related

People v. Arriola (Amado)
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023
People v. Wells
130 A.D.3d 457 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
People v. Diallo
88 A.D.3d 511 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
62 A.D.3d 530, 879 N.Y.S.2d 118, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-jeffries-nyappdiv-2009.