From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Garcia

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
May 25, 2016
139 A.D.3d 1090 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)

Opinion

2013-11384, 2013-11385, 2013-11386.

05-25-2016

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Frank GARCIA, appellant.

Petito & Petito, LLP, Poughkeepsie, NY (Bruce A. Petito of counsel), for appellant. William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, NY (Kirsten A. Rappleyea of counsel), for respondent.


Petito & Petito, LLP, Poughkeepsie, NY (Bruce A. Petito of counsel), for appellant.

William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, NY (Kirsten A. Rappleyea of counsel), for respondent.

Appeals by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Forman, J.), rendered November 19, 2013, convicting him of robbery in the first degree under Indictment No. 10/13, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence, (2) a judgment of the same court, also rendered November 19, 2013, convicting him of burglary in the second degree under Indictment No. 121/12, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence, and (3) a judgment of the same court rendered November 20, 2013, convicting him of burglary in the second degree under Superior Court Information No. 244/13, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeals bring up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

ORDERED that the judgments are affirmed. Contrary to the defendant's contention, the County Court properly denied that branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony. The complaining witness's accidental viewing of the defendant's photograph was not the product of any suggestive or improper police conduct (see People v. Lima, 2 A.D.3d 754, 754, 768 N.Y.S.2d 647 ; People v. Curry, 287 A.D.2d 252, 253, 731 N.Y.S.2d 1 ; People v. Casanova, 124 A.D.2d 813, 813, 509 N.Y.S.2d 41 ).

The County Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant's motion pursuant to CPL 200.20(3)(a) to sever the two robbery charges under Indictment No. 10/13, as he failed to establish good cause that they should be tried separately (see People v. Ford, 11 N.Y.3d 875, 879, 874 N.Y.S.2d 859, 903 N.E.2d 256 ; People v. Martinez, 69 A.D.3d 958, 959, 892 N.Y.S.2d 786 ; People v. Smith, 64 A.D.3d 619, 620, 883 N.Y.S.2d 94 ; People v. Cox, 298 A.D.2d 461, 461, 748 N.Y.S.2d 772 ).

The sentences imposed were not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675 ).

HALL, J.P., ROMAN, COHEN and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Garcia

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
May 25, 2016
139 A.D.3d 1090 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
Case details for

People v. Garcia

Case Details

Full title:The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Frank GARCIA, appellant.

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: May 25, 2016

Citations

139 A.D.3d 1090 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
139 A.D.3d 1090
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 4073