People v. Kilpatrick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Kilpatrick

28 A.D.3d 360, 813 N.Y.S.2d 82

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

DecidedApril 20, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 28 A.D.3d 360 (People v. Kilpatrick) 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. Kilpatrick, 28 A.D.3d 360, 813 N.Y.S.2d 82 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

[361]*361Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bernard J. Fried, J.), rendered October 31, 2003, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of five years, unanimously affirmed.

Even if we were to find that defendant’s waiver of his right to appeal was invalid and that the victim’s viewing of a single photograph of defendant was unduly suggestive, we would find that the record supports the hearing court’s independent source finding (see Neil v Biggers, 409 US 188, 199-200 [1972]; People v Williams, 222 AD2d 149 [1996], lv denied 88 NY2d 1072 [1996]). The victim had an extensive opportunity to observe defendant before and during the lengthy robbery, and she was able to provide a reasonably detailed description. The evidence does not support defendant’s assertion that the victim was primarily focused on defendant’s knife. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Nardelli, Williams, Catterson and Malone, JJ.

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

[361]*361Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bernard J. Fried, J.), rendered October 31, 2003, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of five years, unanimously affirmed.

Even if we were to find that defendant’s waiver of his right to appeal was invalid and that the victim’s viewing of a single photograph of defendant was unduly suggestive, we would find that the record supports the hearing court’s independent source finding (see Neil v Biggers, 409 US 188, 199-200 [1972]; People v Williams, 222 AD2d 149 [1996], lv denied 88 NY2d 1072 [1996]). The victim had an extensive opportunity to observe defendant before and during the lengthy robbery, and she was able to provide a reasonably detailed description. The evidence does not support defendant’s assertion that the victim was primarily focused on defendant’s knife. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Nardelli, Williams, Catterson and Malone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 A.D.3d 360, 813 N.Y.S.2d 82, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-kilpatrick-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack