From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Singleton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 29, 1995
222 A.D.2d 719 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

December 29, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Sherman, J.).


Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

The defendant's contention under Indictment No. 7757/91 that the pretrial identification procedures were unduly suggestive is without merit. Where, as here, "[a]n examination of the hearing testimony reveals that the lineup stand-ins were all similar to the defendant in terms of ethnic background, height, weight and age", a pretrial lineup will be found not to be unduly suggestive (People v Diaz, 138 A.D.2d 728). There is no requirement that a defendant in a lineup be accompanied by individuals nearly identical in appearance (see, People v Chipp, 75 N.Y.2d 327, cert denied 498 U.S. 833; People v Baptiste, 201 A.D.2d 659, 660; People v Hamilton, 186 A.D.2d 581, 582; People v Rotunno, 159 A.D.2d 601). Moreover, the record amply supports the hearing court's conclusion that the defendant did not prove that the police procedures employed in this case were impermissibly suggestive (see, People v Stephens, 143 A.D.2d 692, 695).

Further, the defendant's claim that the trial court erred in allowing a police officer to testify that he arrested the defendant after a conversation with a codefendant who did not testify at trial is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v Valverde, 216 A.D.2d 339; People v Anthony, 179 A.D.2d 765; People v Caldwell, 147 A.D.2d 581; People v Dubois, 137 A.D.2d 706, supra; People v Cummings, 109 A.D.2d 748). In any event, any error was harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt, including the strong identification testimony by the two victims (see, People v Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230; People v Valverde, supra; People v Anthony, supra).

Finally, the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion by denying the defendant's motion to withdraw his pleas of guilty under Indictment Nos. 7758/91, 7759/91, 352/92, 1751/92 and 694/92 (see, CPL 220.60; People v Frederick, 45 N.Y.2d 520; People v Tinsley, 35 N.Y.2d 926; People v Ortiz, 216 A.D.2d 495; People v Lisbon, 187 A.D.2d 457). The defendant knowingly and voluntarily pleaded guilty in the presence of competent counsel after the court had advised him of the consequences of his plea during a thorough and meticulous plea allocution.

The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v McGee, 68 N.Y.2d 328, 333-334; People v Santiago, 204 A.D.2d 497) or do not warrant reversal (see, People v Gagne, 129 A.D.2d 808, 811). Sullivan, J.P., Balletta, Miller and O'Brien, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Singleton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 29, 1995
222 A.D.2d 719 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

People v. Singleton

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. LONNIE SINGLETON…

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

Date published: Dec 29, 1995

Citations

222 A.D.2d 719 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
636 N.Y.S.2d 796

Citing Cases

People v. Preston Hannah

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed. Review of the record reveals no basis to disturb the hearing court's…

People v. Pointer

It is well settled that a defendant in a lineup need not be surrounded by individuals nearly identical in…