People v. Martindale

202 A.D.2d 158, 608 N.Y.S.2d 183, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1754
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 1, 1994
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 202 A.D.2d 158 (People v. Martindale) 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. Martindale, 202 A.D.2d 158, 608 N.Y.S.2d 183, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1754 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Mary McGowan Davis, J., at trial and sentence; Franklin R. Weissberg, J., at combined Wade/Mapp hearing), rendered August 15, 1991, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first and second degrees, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to concurrent terms of from 18 years to life on the first degree robbery conviction and from 15 years to life on the second degree robbery conviction, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to the extent of vacating the sentence and remanding the matter for resentencing and otherwise affirmed.

[159]*159Complainant, one week after having been robbed, saw defendant, told co-workers of his identification of defendant, who he espied on the street. One co-worker dialed 911 and the other followed defendant. Shortly after, defendant was arrested and the complainant identified him, while handcuffed in police custody, as the robber.

Defendant’s contention that the hearing court erred in not granting his motion to suppress the showup identification, since, inter alia, it took place a week after the crime, and in an impermissibly suggestive manner, is without merit. Since complainant had independently recognized defendant approximately 20 minutes before as the robber, the showup was merely confirmatory (People v Walker, 127 AD2d 868, lv denied 70 NY2d 718; see also, People v Soto, 198 AD2d 38, 39).

However, in view of the fact that Criminal Term misstated the minimum permissible sentence (see, Penal Law § 70.08) which defendant could receive as a persistent violent felony offender, and the People concede that error, we vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Carro, Wallach and Tom, JJ.

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

Related

People v. Benjamin
2 A.D.3d 740 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
People v. Quinney
305 A.D.2d 1044 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
People v. Gilbert
295 A.D.2d 275 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
People v. Rosa
294 A.D.2d 159 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
People v. Marte
281 A.D.2d 240 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
People v. Hewitt
267 A.D.2d 326 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
People v. Summers
250 A.D.2d 412 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
People v. Melendez
241 A.D.2d 332 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
People v. Bazelias
220 A.D.2d 443 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
People v. Holland
208 A.D.2d 352 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
People v. Serrano
207 A.D.2d 676 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
202 A.D.2d 158, 608 N.Y.S.2d 183, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1754, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-martindale-nyappdiv-1994.