The People v. Darren Staton

New York Court of Appeals

The People v. Darren Staton

71 N.E.3d 939, 28 N.Y.3d 1160

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 16, 2017

Docket68 SSM 42

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 71 N.E.3d 939 (The People v. Darren Staton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

The People v. Darren Staton, 71 N.E.3d 939, 28 N.Y.3d 1160 (N.Y. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Defendant Darren Staton appeals from an order of the Appellate Division, which affirmed Supreme Court’s judgment and brings up for review denial of defendant’s motion to suppress identification testimony and his subsequent conviction. Defendant argues that the pretrial photo array that led to his arrest was unduly suggestive because he appeared older than the fillers and was the only participant with salt-and-pepper hair. The Appellate Division’s finding that the array was not unduly suggestive is supported by the record, and therefore beyond our further review (People v Holley, 26 NY3d 514, 524 [2015]). Consequently, defendant’s contention that the photo array tainted the lineup after his arrest, to the extent this argument is preserved, is without merit. Additionally, defendant’s argument that he was denied the right to counsel is belied by the record (People v Caban, 5 NY3d 143, 152 [2005]), and he has failed to demonstrate the absence of any strategic or legitimate explanation for counsel’s silence and inaction at sentencing (People v Wright, 25 NY3d 769, 779 [2015]).

Chief Judge DiFiore and Judges Rivera, Abdus-Salaam, Stein, Fahey, Garcia and Wilson concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Defendant Darren Staton appeals from an order of the Appellate Division, which affirmed Supreme Court’s judgment and brings up for review denial of defendant’s motion to suppress identification testimony and his subsequent conviction. Defendant argues that the pretrial photo array that led to his arrest was unduly suggestive because he appeared older than the fillers and was the only participant with salt-and-pepper hair. The Appellate Division’s finding that the array was not unduly suggestive is supported by the record, and therefore beyond our further review (People v Holley, 26 NY3d 514, 524 [2015]). Consequently, defendant’s contention that the photo array tainted the lineup after his arrest, to the extent this argument is preserved, is without merit. Additionally, defendant’s argument that he was denied the right to counsel is belied by the record (People v Caban, 5 NY3d 143, 152 [2005]), and he has failed to demonstrate the absence of any strategic or legitimate explanation for counsel’s silence and inaction at sentencing (People v Wright, 25 NY3d 769, 779 [2015]).

Chief Judge DiFiore and Judges Rivera, Abdus-Salaam, Stein, Fahey, Garcia and Wilson concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 N.E.3d 939, 28 N.Y.3d 1160, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-people-v-darren-staton-ny-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack