From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Martinez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 14, 1999
267 A.D.2d 101 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

December 14, 1999

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John Perone, J., at hearing; Lawrence Bernstein, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered May 21, 1997, convicting defendant of kidnapping in the second degree and robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 12 1/2 to 25 years, unanimously affirmed.

Nancy D. Killian for Respondent.

Catherine N. Morris for Defendant-Appellant.

ROSENBERGER, J.P., WILLIAMS, TOM, MAZZARELLI, BUCKLEY, JJ.


The court properly denied suppression of identification testimony. Assuming, without deciding, that the transportation of the complainant to an area very near an intersection where the investigating officers hoped defendant would be located, providing the complainant with an opportunity to make an identification, was a police-arranged procedure, we conclude that the ensuing spontaneous encounter with defendant was not a showup and was not unduly suggestive (see, People v. Clark, 85 N.Y.2d 886). As soon as he saw defendant, the complainant began staring at him and he identified defendant without undue prompting from the police. We note that defendant received a full Wade hearing (see, People v. Dixon, 85 N.Y.2d 218, 223), and we see no need for a remand for further findings (see, People v. Spruill, 232 A.D.2d 278, lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 946).

The court properly denied suppression of the physical evidence recovered from defendant's apartment, since the record supports an emergency basis for entry of that dwelling that led to the plain view discovery of evidence whose incriminating nature was readily apparent. The police responded to a report of a burglary and saw that the apartment door had been pried upon and left ajar. Accordingly, the police properly entered to look for possible perpetrators or victims. Defendant's attack on the officer's motivation is speculative and we see no reason to disturb the court's determinations concerning credibility.

We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

People v. Martinez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 14, 1999
267 A.D.2d 101 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

People v. Martinez

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JOSEPH MARTINEZ…

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

Date published: Dec 14, 1999

Citations

267 A.D.2d 101 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
700 N.Y.S.2d 434

Citing Cases

People v. Williams

Under the circumstances as described above and the fact that Officer Flower entered the apartment to conduct…

People v. Williams

Under the circumstances as described above and the fact that Officer Flower entered the apartment to conduct…