From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Manuel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 1, 1991
170 A.D.2d 980 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

February 1, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Erie County, Rosetti, J.

Present — Doerr, J.P., Boomer, Green, Pine and Davis, JJ.


Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject defendant's contention that he was denied his constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel (see, US Const 6th, 14th Amends; N Y Const, art I, § 6). Upon our review of the record, we are satisfied that defendant's attorney provided meaningful representation (see, People v Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137).

Defendant knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his right to challenge on appeal the propriety of the suppression court's ruling on the Wade issue (see, People v Seaberg, 74 N.Y.2d 1). Were we to address that issue, we would find that the court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress showup and in-court identification testimony because the showup procedures employed were not unduly suggestive (see, People v Love, 57 N.Y.2d 1023; People v Burns, 133 A.D.2d 642, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 873). Furthermore, the record does not demonstrate that a simultaneous identification was made while defendant was seated in a police car and thus, defendant's argument regarding that issue lacks merit.


Summaries of

People v. Manuel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 1, 1991
170 A.D.2d 980 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

People v. Manuel

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JAMES MANUEL, Appellant

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

Date published: Feb 1, 1991

Citations

170 A.D.2d 980 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Citing Cases

People v. Jenkins

Although simultaneous showups are generally frowned upon (People v Adams, 53 N.Y.2d 241, 249), procedures…