| People v Guy |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 00115 [47 AD3d 643] |
| January 8, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Patrick Guy, Appellant. |
—[*1] Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Edward A. Bannan of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Crecca, J.),rendered January 6, 2006, convicting him of attempted robbery in the second degree and criminalpossession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. Theappeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of those branches of the defendant'somnibus motion which were to suppress identification testimony and his written statement to lawenforcement officials.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Minutes after an unsuccessful attempt to forcibly steal money from a store in Commack, thedefendant was arrested in the nearby hamlet of Hauppauge and was brought back by the police tothe scene of the crime for a showup identification, which took place approximately 51 minutesafter the crime had been reported. The defendant was made to stand near the rear of a markedpolice vehicle, surrounded by several uniformed and plainclothes police officers, and waspositioned in such manner as to obscure the fact that he was wearing handcuffs. The complainantthen identified him as the would-be robber. The County Court correctly found that the Peoplemet their initial burden of establishing that the showup was reasonable under the circumstancesand not unduly suggestive (see People v Ortiz, 90 NY2d 533, 537 [1997]; People v Ramos, 34 AD3d 1363[2006]; People v Rodgers, 6 AD3d464, 465 [2004]; People v Davis, 256 AD2d 49 [1998]; People v Yearwood,197 AD2d 554 [1993]; People v Brooks, 125 AD2d 481, 482 [1986]; cf. People vJohnson, 81 NY2d 828, 831 [1993]; People v James, 218 [*2]AD2d 709, 710 [1995]; People v Rivera, 210 AD2d 895,896 [1994]; People v Walker, 198 AD2d 826, 827- 828 [1993]), and the defendant failedto carry his ultimate burden of proving that the procedure was unduly suggestive (see Peoplev Ortiz, 90 NY2d at 533). Thus, suppression of the identification testimony was properlydenied.
Moreover, contrary to the defendant's contention, the People also met their burden ofproving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that his written statement to law enforcement officials wasvoluntary and, therefore, admissible (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 413-414 [2004],cert denied 542 US 946; People v Huntley, 15 NY2d 72, 78 [1965]). "[M]uchweight must be accorded to the determination of the suppression court with its peculiaradvantages of having seen and heard the witnesses" (People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759,761 [1977]; see People v Wheeler, 2 NY3d 370, 374 [2004]; People v Stafford, 39 AD3d 774,776 [2007]). In this case, the hearing court's determination was supported by the record.
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit. Crane, J.P., Fisher, Carni andMcCarthy, JJ., concur.