People v. Leach

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Leach

160 A.D.2d 623, 559 N.Y.S.2d 245, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4741

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

DecidedApril 26, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 160 A.D.2d 623 (People v. Leach) 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. Leach, 160 A.D.2d 623, 559 N.Y.S.2d 245, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4741 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Franklin Weissberg, J.), rendered March 29, 1988, convicting defendant, upon a jury verdict, of two counts of robbery in the second degree and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 4 to 8 years’ imprisonment, unanimously affirmed.

The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the People (People v Malizia, 62 NY2d 755, cert denied 469 US 932) was sufficient to support the conviction as it established that defendant participated in the robbery by unsuccessfully attempting to enter the victim’s car and by then reaching into the car and attempting to take the radio. The victim’s identification of defendant and his cohort was spontaneous and not the result of police conduct. Since defendant failed to establish that the identification was suggestive, the denial of his application for production of the identifying witness, which was made after the court rendered its decision denying suppression, was proper (People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327; People v Peterkin, 151 AD2d 407, lv granted 74 NY2d 822).

Defense counsel’s other contentions, in addition to the issues raised by defendant in his supplemental pro se brief, which include a claim of ineffectiveness with respect to appellate counsel, have been reviewed and found to be without merit. [624]*624Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Milonas, Rosenberger and Asch, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Franklin Weissberg, J.), rendered March 29, 1988, convicting defendant, upon a jury verdict, of two counts of robbery in the second degree and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 4 to 8 years’ imprisonment, unanimously affirmed.

The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the People (People v Malizia, 62 NY2d 755, cert denied 469 US 932) was sufficient to support the conviction as it established that defendant participated in the robbery by unsuccessfully attempting to enter the victim’s car and by then reaching into the car and attempting to take the radio. The victim’s identification of defendant and his cohort was spontaneous and not the result of police conduct. Since defendant failed to establish that the identification was suggestive, the denial of his application for production of the identifying witness, which was made after the court rendered its decision denying suppression, was proper (People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327; People v Peterkin, 151 AD2d 407, lv granted 74 NY2d 822).

Defense counsel’s other contentions, in addition to the issues raised by defendant in his supplemental pro se brief, which include a claim of ineffectiveness with respect to appellate counsel, have been reviewed and found to be without merit. [624]*624Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Milonas, Rosenberger and Asch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

160 A.D.2d 623, 559 N.Y.S.2d 245, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4741, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-leach-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack