Opinion
2015–01907 Ind. No. 2228/12
06-06-2018
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Raymond BALL, appellant.
Randall D. Unger, Bayside, NY, for appellant, and appellant pro se. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, Roni C. Piplani, Meredith D'Angelo, Joseph N. Ferdenzi, and Joseph Z. Amsel of counsel), for respondent.
Randall D. Unger, Bayside, NY, for appellant, and appellant pro se.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, Roni C. Piplani, Meredith D'Angelo, Joseph N. Ferdenzi, and Joseph Z. Amsel of counsel), for respondent.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., REINALDO E. RIVERA, SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, ANGELA G. IANNACCI, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Barry A. Schwartz, J.), rendered March 4, 2015, convicting him of robbery in the second degree (two counts), assault in the third degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Ronald D. Hollie, J.), of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence, identification testimony, and his statements to law enforcement officials.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
We agree with the hearing court's determinations that there was probable cause for the defendant's arrest, and accordingly, to deny suppression of physical evidence, identification testimony, and the defendant's statements to law enforcement officials (see People v. Mason , 119 A.D.3d 710, 711, 988 N.Y.S.2d 887 ; People v. Cotsifas , 100 A.D.3d 1015, 1015, 954 N.Y.S.2d 219 ; People v. McNeil , 47 A.D.3d 647, 647, 848 N.Y.S.2d 542 ; People v. Vasquez , 291 A.D.2d 465, 465, 737 N.Y.S.2d 552 ; People v. Jackson , 282 A.D.2d 473, 474, 723 N.Y.S.2d 80 ).
The defendant did not preserve for appellate review his argument that a proper foundation was not laid pursuant to CPL 60.25 to support the admission of testimony regarding the complainant's identification of the defendant at a pretrial showup (see People v. Davis, 139 A.D.3d 966, 967, 30 N.Y.S.3d 575 ; People v. Jenkins, 205 A.D.2d 642, 643, 613 N.Y.S.2d 411 ). In any event, that argument is without merit (see People v. Davis, 139 A.D.3d at 967, 30 N.Y.S.3d 575; People v. Rivera, 308 A.D.2d 602, 603, 764 N.Y.S.2d 880 ; People v. Polite, 228 A.D.2d 705, 706, 644 N.Y.S.2d 977 ; People v. Hernandez, 154 A.D.2d 197, 202, 552 N.Y.S.2d 649 ).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the record, as a whole, demonstrates that the defendant's decision to waive his right to counsel and to proceed pro se was unequivocal, knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v. Paulin , 140 A.D.3d 985, 987, 33 N.Y.S.3d 459 ; People v. Malone , 119 A.D.3d 1352, 1354, 989 N.Y.S.2d 218 ; People v. Lewis , 114 A.D.3d 402, 404–405, 980 N.Y.S.2d 389 ). The trial court's extensive inquiry established the defendant's ability to represent himself and emphasized the dangers and disadvantages of proceeding without counsel (see People v. McCord , 133 A.D.3d 689, 690, 20 N.Y.S.3d 98 ; People v. Zalevsky , 82 A.D.3d 1136, 918 N.Y.S.2d 790 ; People v. Damon , 78 A.D.3d 860, 911 N.Y.S.2d 127 ).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675 ).
The defendant's remaining contentions, raised in his pro se supplemental brief, are without merit.
MASTRO, J.P., RIVERA, HINDS–RADIX and IANNACCI, JJ., concur.