From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Lupo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 13, 1992
179 A.D.2d 683 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

January 13, 1992

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


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The credible evidence established that the defendant was informed of his right to appear before the Grand Jury and waived that right. Accordingly, the court properly denied the defendant's late request to testify before the Grand Jury.

In addition, the court properly concluded that the complainant, who stood face to face with her assailant in broad daylight and was able to describe him to the police in some detail, had a source to identify the defendant independent of a tainted showup identification (Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263, 272; People v. Ballott, 20 N.Y.2d 600, 606-607; People v. Flores, 160 A.D.2d 1020).

The court properly sentenced the defendant as a persistent violent felony offender. The defendant was afforded an opportunity to contest the validity of the prior convictions upon which the persistent violent felony offender status was based. The validity of the defendant's 1978 conviction was previously adjudicated at a persistent felony hearing on a 1983 conviction and that court's finding of constitutionality is binding (CPL 400.15, 400.16 Crim. Proc., 400.21 Crim. Proc. [8]; People v. Ross, 138 A.D.2d 543; see also, People v. Conti, 149 A.D.2d 607; People v. Williams, 133 A.D.2d 871; People v. Young, 123 A.D.2d 366). In addition, a review of the plea allocution and sentencing minutes in connection with the 1983 conviction reveal that the defendant was afforded his rights under Boykin v. Alabama ( 395 U.S. 238) and was apprised of the fact that his conviction could result in an enhanced sentence upon a later conviction. Indeed, we find nothing to suggest that the defendant's plea was not knowing and voluntary (see, People v. Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9).

We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised by his supplemental pro se brief and find them to be without merit (see, CPL 270.20; People v Satterfield, 66 N.Y.2d 796, 799; People v. Jones, 160 A.D.2d 613; People v. Lawrence, 143 A.D.2d 1045, 1046; People v. Marchese, 140 A.D.2d 547, 548; People v. Shannon, 137 A.D.2d 850, 851). Thompson, J.P., Kunzeman, Miller and Copertino, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Lupo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 13, 1992
179 A.D.2d 683 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

People v. Lupo

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. SAL LUPO, Appellant

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

Date published: Jan 13, 1992

Citations

179 A.D.2d 683 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
579 N.Y.S.2d 112

Citing Cases

People v. Williams

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed. Contrary to the defendant's contention, the court properly concluded…

People v. Lupo

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed. We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant's assigned…