Opinion
2012-06-15
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Marquil L. ADAMS, Defendant–Appellant.
The Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc., Buffalo (Barbara J. Davies of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Marquil L. Adams, Defendant–Appellant Pro Se.
The Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc., Buffalo (Barbara J. Davies of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Marquil L. Adams, Defendant–Appellant Pro Se.
Frank A. Sedita, III, District Attorney, Buffalo (Ashley R. Small of Counsel), for Respondent.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, SCONIERS, and MARTOCHE, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15[4] ) and robbery in the second degree (§ 160.10[1] ). Contrary to defendant's contention, we conclude that the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the People ( see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), is legally sufficient to establish his identity as one of the perpetrators of the robbery ( see People v. Brown, 92 A.D.3d 1216–1217, 937 N.Y.S.2d 803,lv. denied18 N.Y.3d 992, 945 N.Y.S.2d 647, 968 N.E.2d 1003 [2012] ). We further conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence on the issue of identification ( see People v. Young, 74 A.D.3d 1471, 1472, 902 N.Y.S.2d 222,lv. denied15 N.Y.3d 811, 908 N.Y.S.2d 171, 934 N.E.2d 905;see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672).
Defendant also contends that the pretrial identification by the robbery victim from a photo array should have been suppressed as the fruit of an illegal arrest ( see generally People v. Hill, 53 A.D.3d 1151, 1151, 860 N.Y.S.2d 780;People v. Robinson, 282 A.D.2d 75, 79–82, 728 N.Y.S.2d 421). In its ruling on defendant's suppression motion, Supreme Court concluded that the photo array procedure was not unduly suggestive, but failed to address the legality of defendant's detention or arrest. “CPL 470.15(1) precludes [this Court] from reviewing an issue that was either decided in an appellant's favor or was not decided by the trial court” ( People v. Ingram, 18 N.Y.3d 948, 949, 944 N.Y.S.2d 470, 967 N.E.2d 695;see People v. LaFontaine, 92 N.Y.2d 470, 474, 682 N.Y.S.2d 671, 705 N.E.2d 663,rearg. denied93 N.Y.2d 849, 688 N.Y.S.2d 495, 710 N.E.2d 1094). Thus, we may not resolve defendant's contention regarding a theory not addressed by the court. We therefore hold the case, reserve decision and remit the matter to Supreme Court to determine whether the identification testimony should be suppressed as the fruit of an illegal detention or arrest ( see generally People v. Chattley, 89 A.D.3d 1557, 1558, 932 N.Y.S.2d 750).
It is hereby ORDERED that the case is held, the decision is reserved and the matter is remitted to Supreme Court, Erie County, for further proceedings.