People v. Johnson

162 A.D.2d 1016, 559 N.Y.S.2d 198, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9787
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in People v. Johnson. Read the opinion of the Court — 133 A.D.2d 175

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant has failed to preserve his argument that the court erred in refusing to suppress the victim’s in-court identification because the People failed to "present information” that the victim had viewed defendant after the robbery but before the photo array, and we decline to reach it in the interest of justice (CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). Nor was defendant denied his right to a speedy trial pursuant to CPL 30.30. The People announced readiness at arraignment and there is no proof that they were not actually ready for trial at that time (cf., People v Kendzia, 64 NY2d 331, 337-338). We cannot review the court’s CPL article 440 order because defendant failed to obtain leave to appeal. (Appeal from judgment of Niagara County Court, Hannigan, J.—robbery, second degree.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Boomer, Pine, Davis and Lowery, JJ.

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

People v. Johnson, 162 A.D.2d 1016, 559 N.Y.S.2d 198, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9787 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

162 A.D.2d 1016 (People v. Johnson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Kendzia
476 N.E.2d 287 (New York Court of Appeals, 1985)