Opinion
November 3, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Groh, J.).
Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the police did not have probable cause to arrest him lacks merit. The defendant matched the description relayed over the police radio and was observed near the scene of the crime within 5 to 10 minutes after the occurrence. These facts, considered together with the defendant's suspicious behavior in standing behind a bush counting money, provided the necessary predicate for a finding of probable cause to effectuate the defendant's arrest (see, People v Lypka, 36 N.Y.2d 210; People v Saylor, 113 A.D.2d 904; People v Messam, 112 A.D.2d 449).
Moreover, we reject the defendant's contention that the showup identification which occurred in close proximity in time and place to the commission of the crime was unduly suggestive so as to give rise to a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. Under the circumstances, the showup was proper to ensure prompt identification (see, People v Love, 57 N.Y.2d 1023; People v Brnja, 50 N.Y.2d 366).
The court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's oral application to withdraw his pleas of guilty. The record establishes that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived his rights and pleaded guilty (see, People v Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9). The record provided no grounds for the withdrawal of the pleas (People v Ramos, 63 N.Y.2d 640, 642-643).
Lastly, we do not find the sentences imposed to be unduly harsh or excessive. The concurrent terms at 9 to 18 years are within the legally permissible range (Penal Law § 70.04, [4]) and are the ones for which the defendant freely bargained (see, e.g., People v La Lande, 104 A.D.2d 1052; People v Kazepis, 101 A.D.2d 816). Thompson, J.P., Weinstein, Rubin and Spatt, JJ., concur.