From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Bolden Banks

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 29, 1997
242 A.D.2d 726 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

September 29, 1997

Appeal from County Court, Rockland County (Nelson, J.).


Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

Under Indictment No. 93-00316, the defendant was charged, inter alia, with two counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. The court did not err when it denied, without a Wade hearing, the defendant's motion to suppress the identification testimony of the two undercover officers who purchased the cocaine. Each identified the defendant as the seller from a single photograph. Although a single photograph identification can be suggestive if too remote in time from an officer's face-to-face observation of a defendant, here, each officer made an identification within one-half hour of the sale as an integral part of proper police procedure ( see, People v Miles, 219 A.D.2d 685; People v. Montgomery, 213 A.D.2d 663, affd 88 N.Y.2d 926). Accordingly, the court, permissibly, summarily determined that the identifications were merely confirmatory ( see, People v. Wharton, 74 N.Y.2d 921).

The only allegation of error relating to Indictment No. 94-00026 was that while the transcript of the court reporter's minutes of the sentence proceedings indicated that the defendant was sentenced to an indeterminate term of three to six years imprisonment upon his conviction of assault in the second degree, the extract of the clerk's minutes of those proceedings set forth in the order of commitment stated that a sentence of three and one-half to seven years imprisonment had been imposed. The matter was remitted to the County Court to correct the discrepancy ( see, People v. Banks, 234 A.D.2d 311, supra). The County Court has complied and resettled the order of commitment to reflect that the sentence actually imposed was a term of three to six years imprisonment. The discrepancy having been resolved in the defendant's favor and there being no contention that a term of three to six years was excessive under the circumstances of this case, the judgment rendered under Indictment 94-00026 is affirmed.

Miller, J.P., Ritter, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Bolden Banks

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 29, 1997
242 A.D.2d 726 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

People v. Bolden Banks

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. BOLDEN BANKS, Appellant

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

Date published: Sep 29, 1997

Citations

242 A.D.2d 726 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
663 N.Y.S.2d 46

Citing Cases

People v. Wheeler

2 ; see People v. Roberts, 79 N.Y.2d 964, 966, 582 N.Y.S.2d 996, 591 N.E.2d 1182 [1992] ; People v. Nguyen,…

People v. Soto

The hearing court properly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress the…