Opinion
October 30, 1989
Appeal from the County Court, Westchester County (Cowhey, J.).
Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
The proof adduced at trial established that on January 11, 1984, the defendants Cespedes and Moreno sodomized, raped and shot two women in a Yonkers apartment. Although both women survived, one of the victims was permanently blinded as a result of having sustained a gunshot wound to the head. A warrant was subsequently issued for the arrest of the defendant Cespedes, who was known to both of the victims. Thereafter, the police surveilled Cespedes' neighborhood and spotted him in a gray Cadillac pulling into a parking lot. As a detective approached the Cadillac in order to detain Cespedes, he observed a man hiding in the rear seat of the car whose appearance matched the description of the second assailant as provided by the victims. Both men were placed under arrest and were subsequently identified as the perpetrators by one of the victims. Those branches of the defendants' motions which were to suppress identification testimony and physical evidence were denied and both men were found guilty by a jury, inter alia, of attempted murder, sodomy in the first degree and rape in the first degree. We affirm.
We reject the defendant Moreno's contention that his warrantless arrest was premised on less than probable cause. It is well settled that a police officer may arrest a person without a warrant when he possesses probable cause to believe that such a person has committed a crime (see, People v Johnson, 66 N.Y.2d 398, 402; People v Pedreira, 143 A.D.2d 778, 779). The record reveals that the victims provided a detailed description of Moreno's appearance, thereby supplying the arresting officers with probable cause to believe that Moreno, who was arrested as he hid in Cespedes' automobile, was one of the perpetrators of the crimes.
The record supports the hearing court's conclusion that neither the lineup nor the photo array displayed to one of the victims was impermissibly suggestive. In any event, and as the hearing court found, there existed an independent basis supporting the victim's identification inasmuch as she had ample opportunity to observe her assailants in a well-lighted apartment during the commission of the crime (see, e.g., People v Smalls, 112 A.D.2d 173). Contrary to the defendant Moreno's contentions, the court properly exercised its discretion in denying his motion for a separate trial. Where, as here, proof against the defendants is furnished by the same evidence, only the most compelling reasons warrant the granting of a motion for a separate trial (see, People v Anfossi, 125 A.D.2d 317; see also, People v Bornholdt, 33 N.Y.2d 75, 87, cert denied sub nom. Victory v New York, 416 U.S. 905). Under the circumstances, the defense counsel's conclusory assertions — refuted by the record — that there had been "no definite identification" of the defendant Moreno failed to establish defendant's entitlement to a separate trial (see, People v Gonzalez, 137 A.D.2d 558; People v Larkin, 135 A.D.2d 834, 835).
In light of the violent nature of the crimes committed, the sentences imposed were not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
We have reviewed the defendants' remaining contentions, including those raised in the defendant Moreno's supplemental pro se brief, and find them to be without merit. Kooper, J.P., Spatt, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.