From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Puckett

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 17, 2000
270 A.D.2d 364 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

Submitted January 28, 2000

March 17, 2000

Appeal by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rotker, J.), both rendered April 27, 1998, convicting him of robbery in the first degree under Indictment Number 3023/96, and robbery in the first degree under Indictment Number 3034/96, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences. The appeals bring up for review the denial, after a hearing, (O'Dwyer, J.H.O., findings of fact and conclusion of law; Schulman, J., on the order), of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Kevin Costello, Flushing, N.Y., for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Nicoletta J. Caferri, and Thomas S. Berkman of counsel), for respondent.

DANIEL W. JOY, J.P., SONDRA MILLER, WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, ANITA R. FLORIO, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgments are reversed, on the law, the pleas are vacated, and the matters are remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings consistent herewith, including an independent source hearing under Indictment Number 3034/96.

We agree with the defendant that, due to dissimilarities between him and the lineup fillers, the lineup procedure with regard to Indictment Number 3034/96 was unduly suggestive (see, People v. Owens, 74 N.Y.2d 677; People v. Murphy, 260 A.D.2d 505). Thus, because the People did not have an opportunity to establish the existence of an independent source, if any, for the store patron's in-court identification of the defendant, further proceedings, including an independent source hearing, are required (see,People v. Burts, 78 N.Y.2d 20).

Both judgments are reversed since the defendant' s pleas of guilty with respect to both indictments were conditioned on the negotiated agreement that he would receive concurrent sentences (see, People v. Clark, 45 N.Y.2d 432; People v. Panetta, 250 A.D.2d 710).

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.

JOY, J.P., S. MILLER, FRIEDMANN, and FLORIO, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Puckett

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 17, 2000
270 A.D.2d 364 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

People v. Puckett

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. ANTHONY PUCKETT, appellant. (Ind. Nos…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Mar 17, 2000

Citations

270 A.D.2d 364 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
705 N.Y.S.2d 381

Citing Cases

People v. Smart

nsel may have failed specifically to point out, during the Wade hearing (United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218,…

People v. Smart

Although defense counsel may have failed specifically to point out, during the Wade hearing (United States v…