From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Walters

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 4, 2002
299 A.D.2d 377 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

1998-09589

Argued May 23, 2002.

November 4, 2002.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Giaccio, J.), rendered October 8, 1998, 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.

Andrew C. Fine, New York, N.Y. (Kevin F. Casey and Roy Wasserman of counsel), for appellant, and appellant pro se.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, Keith Kalmus, and Susan Lee Kim of counsel), for respondent.

Before: ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P., NANCY E. SMITH, WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, HOWARD MILLER, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant did not preserve for appellate review his contention that the trial court erred in permitting a police officer to testify regarding the victim's prior out-of-court identification of the defendant as the perpetrator of the robbery without meeting the requirements of CPL 60.25 (see CPL 470.05; People v. Victor, 271 A.D.2d 556). In any event, a proper foundation was laid for that testimony. The victim testified at the trial, which was held almost one year after the crime occurred, that "[i]t's been so long" that he could not recognize in the courtroom the person who robbed him. Further, the victim testified that he identified the perpetrator to the police immediately after the crime occurred, and that the person the police arrested was the person who robbed him. Thus, the police officer's testimony was admissible (see People v. Victor, supra; People v. Gramby, 251 A.D.2d 346).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).

The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, either concern matter dehors the record and are not properly presented on direct appeal (see People v. Sacco, 294 A.D.2d 452; People v. Bennet, 284 A.D.2d 338), or are without merit.

FLORIO, J.P., SMITH, FRIEDMANN and H. MILLER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Walters

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 4, 2002
299 A.D.2d 377 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

People v. Walters

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, ETC., respondent, v. FELTON WALTERS, appellant

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

Date published: Nov 4, 2002

Citations

299 A.D.2d 377 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
749 N.Y.S.2d 156

Citing Cases

Quinones v. Miller

Thus, if Deans' testimony satisfied C.P.L. § 60.25, it was proper for Detective Milian to testify about…

People v. Constant

Thus, under the circumstances, the trial court properly vacated his plea of guilty ( see People v. Rubendall,…