People v. Mack

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Mack

148 A.D.2d 471, 538 N.Y.S.2d 1012, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2404

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

DecidedMarch 6, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 148 A.D.2d 471 (People v. Mack) 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. Mack, 148 A.D.2d 471, 538 N.Y.S.2d 1012, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2404 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Belli, J.), rendered May 23, 1985, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the [472]*472denial (Kepner, J.), after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress certain identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by vacating the sentence imposed; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the County Court, Nassau County, for a hearing pursuant to CPL 400.21 and for resentencing.

We find no merit to the defendant’s contention that he was entitled to suppression of the victim’s showup identification of him. The identification took place about 300 feet from the gas station where the robbery occurred and within 10 minutes thereof (see, People v Molina, 140 AD2d 377; People v Redd, 137 AD2d 770).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s challenge to his adjudication as a second felony offender is meritorious. The defendant was entitled to have a hearing with regard to his claim that his prior Connecticut conviction for escape had been obtained unconstitutionally for lack of effective assistance of trial counsel, who had jointly represented the defendant and his codefendants (see, People v Ordine, 130 AD2d 518; People v Wright, 119 AD2d 973, lv denied 67 NY2d 1058). If the court finds that the defendant’s constitutional rights were violated, the conviction cannot be used as the predicate for a second felony offender adjudication.

We have examined the defendant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, J. P., Lawrence, Rubin and Hooper, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Belli, J.), rendered May 23, 1985, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the [472]*472denial (Kepner, J.), after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress certain identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by vacating the sentence imposed; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the County Court, Nassau County, for a hearing pursuant to CPL 400.21 and for resentencing.

We find no merit to the defendant’s contention that he was entitled to suppression of the victim’s showup identification of him. The identification took place about 300 feet from the gas station where the robbery occurred and within 10 minutes thereof (see, People v Molina, 140 AD2d 377; People v Redd, 137 AD2d 770).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s challenge to his adjudication as a second felony offender is meritorious. The defendant was entitled to have a hearing with regard to his claim that his prior Connecticut conviction for escape had been obtained unconstitutionally for lack of effective assistance of trial counsel, who had jointly represented the defendant and his codefendants (see, People v Ordine, 130 AD2d 518; People v Wright, 119 AD2d 973, lv denied 67 NY2d 1058). If the court finds that the defendant’s constitutional rights were violated, the conviction cannot be used as the predicate for a second felony offender adjudication.

We have examined the defendant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, J. P., Lawrence, Rubin and Hooper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

148 A.D.2d 471, 538 N.Y.S.2d 1012, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2404, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mack-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack