People v. Puckett

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Puckett

265 A.D.2d 198, 697 N.Y.S.2d 252, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10289

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 14, 1999·Published

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (George Daniels, J.), [199] rendered May 13, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of six counts of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to three concurrent terms of 20 years to run consecutively with three more concurrent terms of 20 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court’s charge as a whole adequately conveyed the correct standards (see, People v Hernandez, 93 NY2d 261, 272) as to the separation of evidence in a trial based on multiple incidents that were separate in time and space. This is clear from the fact that defendant was acquitted of one of the charged robberies.

The record confirms the hearing court’s findings that, at all of the lineups herein, there was a reasonable resemblance between defendant and the other lineup participants. All of the lineups employed seating to minimize height differences (see, e.g., People v Herrera, 219 AD2d 511, lv denied 87 NY2d 847), and in every other respect, the fillers selected for defendant’s lineup were not so dissimilar in appearance to defendant as to make him stand out (see, People v Bryan, 228 AD2d 244, lv denied 88 NY2d 1019). Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Rosenberger, Tom, Lerner and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (George Daniels, J.), [199] rendered May 13, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of six counts of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to three concurrent terms of 20 years to run consecutively with three more concurrent terms of 20 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court’s charge as a whole adequately conveyed the correct standards (see, People v Hernandez, 93 NY2d 261, 272) as to the separation of evidence in a trial based on multiple incidents that were separate in time and space. This is clear from the fact that defendant was acquitted of one of the charged robberies.

The record confirms the hearing court’s findings that, at all of the lineups herein, there was a reasonable resemblance between defendant and the other lineup participants. All of the lineups employed seating to minimize height differences (see, e.g., People v Herrera, 219 AD2d 511, lv denied 87 NY2d 847), and in every other respect, the fillers selected for defendant’s lineup were not so dissimilar in appearance to defendant as to make him stand out (see, People v Bryan, 228 AD2d 244, lv denied 88 NY2d 1019). Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Rosenberger, Tom, Lerner and Saxe, JJ.

People v. Puckett, 265 A.D.2d 198, 697 N.Y.S.2d 252, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10289 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

265 A.D.2d 198 (People v. Puckett) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related