From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Duckfield

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 24, 1989
149 A.D.2d 726 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Opinion

April 24, 1989

Appeal from the County Court, Suffolk County (Cacciabaudo, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's claim on appeal that the complainant chose him out of a lineup because he was wearing distinctive clothing was not raised before the hearing court and is therefore not preserved for our review (see, People v. Rogers, 135 A.D.2d 588, lv denied 71 N.Y.2d 902). In any event, based upon our review of the record, we find that the hearing court properly determined that the lineup was not unduly suggestive.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15).

In addition, we find that the sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).

We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Mangano, J.P., Lawrence, Kooper and Sullivan, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Duckfield

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 24, 1989
149 A.D.2d 726 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
Case details for

People v. Duckfield

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ARTHUR DUCKFIELD…

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

Date published: Apr 24, 1989

Citations

149 A.D.2d 726 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Citing Cases

People v. Caba

Defendant's suppression motion was properly denied. His present argument that the lineup was suggestive…