People v. Manuel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Manuel

304 A.D.2d 428, 759 N.Y.S.2d 15, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4140

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 17, 2003·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Edward Davidowitz, J., at suppression hearing; Harold Silverman, J., at jury trial, reopened suppression hearing and sentence), rendered February 15, 2001, convicting defendant of four counts of robbery in the first degree, and senténcing him to concurrent terms of 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s reopened suppression motion was properly denied. The victims’ momentary precinct viewing of defendant in handcuffs could not have tainted their lineup identifications made 17 days later, because the victims had already twice recognized defendant just prior to the precinct encounter and had witnessed his arrest, because the victims had seen defendant in the neighborhood on various occasions prior to the crime, and because of the passage of time between the precinct encounter and the lineup (see People v Tong Khuu, 293 AD2d 424, 425 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 714 [2002]; People v Reynoso, 182 AD2d 546 [1992], lv denied 80 NY2d 836 [1992]). Defendant’s remaining contentions concerning the identification testimony are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Lerner, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Edward Davidowitz, J., at suppression hearing; Harold Silverman, J., at jury trial, reopened suppression hearing and sentence), rendered February 15, 2001, convicting defendant of four counts of robbery in the first degree, and senténcing him to concurrent terms of 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s reopened suppression motion was properly denied. The victims’ momentary precinct viewing of defendant in handcuffs could not have tainted their lineup identifications made 17 days later, because the victims had already twice recognized defendant just prior to the precinct encounter and had witnessed his arrest, because the victims had seen defendant in the neighborhood on various occasions prior to the crime, and because of the passage of time between the precinct encounter and the lineup (see People v Tong Khuu, 293 AD2d 424, 425 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 714 [2002]; People v Reynoso, 182 AD2d 546 [1992], lv denied 80 NY2d 836 [1992]). Defendant’s remaining contentions concerning the identification testimony are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Lerner, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.

People v. Manuel, 304 A.D.2d 428, 759 N.Y.S.2d 15, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4140 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

304 A.D.2d 428 (People v. Manuel) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related