Opinion
2002-04486.
December 1, 2003.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Cotter, J.), rendered May 8, 2002, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's motion which was to suppress identification testimony.
Kent V. Moston, Hempstead, N.Y. (Jeremy I. Goldberg and Ruth C. Stern of counsel), for appellant.
Denis Dillon, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Judith R. Sternberg and Cristin N. Connell of counsel), for respondent.
Before: ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Showup procedures are permissible when, as here, they are conducted in close spatial and temporal proximity to the commission of the crime for the purpose of securing a prompt and reliable identification ( see People v. Duuvon, 77 N.Y.2d 541, 543-544; People v. Jackson, 180 A.D.2d 756, 757; People v. Holder, 178 A.D.2d 436, 437; People v. Adams, 163 A.D.2d 318, 319). Contrary to the defendant's contention, his showup identification was not unduly suggestive because he was handcuffed and in the presence of uniformed police officers during the showup procedure ( see People v. Grassia, 195 A.D.2d 607; People v. Whitney, 158 A.D.2d 734; People v. Capeheart, 151 A.D.2d 592, 592-593; People v. Dennis, 125 A.D.2d 325, 326).
The trial court providently exercised its discretion in admitting into evidence a videotape of the crime scene ( see People v. Hill, 281 A.D.2d 917, 918). In any event, in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt, any error was harmless ( see People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230).
Contrary to the defendant's contentions, the fact that the sentence imposed was greater than that offered during plea negotiations is no indication that the defendant was punished for exercising his right to proceed to trial ( see People v. Carillo, 297 A.D.2d 288, 289). Moreover, the sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
McGINITY, J.P., LUCIANO, SCHMIDT and RIVERA, JJ., concur.