From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Francheschi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 16, 1987
128 A.D.2d 723 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Opinion

March 16, 1987

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hayes, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's argument, his detention by the arresting officers was proper. Officer Gallo testified that the defendant fit the description which the complainant gave to the officers only three to five minutes before the stop. Moreover, the confrontation between the defendant and the police occurred only two blocks from the scene of the crime. Under the circumstances, and in view of the defendant's furtive behavior, the police had a sufficient basis to stop and detain the defendant pending an identification by the complainant (see, People v. Hicks, 68 N.Y.2d 234, 242; People v. De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d 210, 222; People v. Cantor, 36 N.Y.2d 106, 111; People v. Saylor, 113 A.D.2d 904).

The subsequent showup identification procedure was not unduly suggestive. A prompt, on-the-scene showup identification is an appropriate procedure for identifying suspects (see, People v Love, 57 N.Y.2d 1023; People v. Brnja, 70 A.D.2d 17, 23, affd 50 N.Y.2d 366; People v. Saylor, supra).

Additionally, the defendant contends that he did not effectuate a knowing, voluntary and intelligent waiver of his constitutional rights prior to making a videotaped statement to an Assistant District Attorney. The hearing court found that the defendant was twice advised of his rights and he acknowledged an understanding of his rights. We find that the hearing court's determination was supported by the evidence (see, People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759; People v. Armstead, 98 A.D.2d 726).

We further find that the defendant's guilt was established beyond a reasonable doubt. The instant case presented a question of credibility for the trier of fact, and we find no basis to disturb the trial court's determination (see, People v Bauer, 113 A.D.2d 543).

We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions, including the claim that the sentence imposed by the court was unduly harsh and excessive, and find them to be without merit. Mangano, J.P., Brown, Niehoff and Eiber, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Francheschi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 16, 1987
128 A.D.2d 723 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)
Case details for

People v. Francheschi

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JOHN FRANCHESCHI…

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

Date published: Mar 16, 1987

Citations

128 A.D.2d 723 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Citing Cases

People v. Wade

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

People v. McLaughlin

Moreover, the defendant fit the description of the perpetrator. Under the circumstances, the police were…