People v. Williams

221 A.D.2d 953, 634 N.Y.S.2d 316, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13446
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 15, 1995·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that Supreme Court erred in denying his request for a Wade hearing. We conclude that the viewing of a photograph of defendant from the file by the officer who purchased cocaine from defendant on two separate occasions did not entitle defendant to a Wade hearing. If the undercover officer viewed the [954]*954photograph before his first encounter with defendant, the People were not required to provide a notice of identification (see, CPL 710.30 [1]). If the officer viewed the photograph between the first and second encounters, any hint of suggestiveness was dissipated when the officer observed defendant during a second face-to-face drug transaction; that second encounter, along with several telephonic communications with defendant, establishes assurances of reliability obviating the need for a Wade hearing (see, People v Wharton, 74 NY2d 921, 923).

Given defendant’s extensive criminal history, we decline to exercise our power to modify defendant’s sentence as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6] [b]). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Bergin, J.—Criminal Sale Controlled Substance, 2nd Degree.) Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Wesley, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

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

People v. Williams, 221 A.D.2d 953, 634 N.Y.S.2d 316, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13446 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

221 A.D.2d 953 (People v. Williams) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Little
279 A.D.2d 703 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)