| People v Wynter |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 01186 [48 AD3d 492] |
| February 5, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v DavidWynter, Appellant. |
—[*1] Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano and Rona I.Kugler of counsel; Danielle Grinblat on the brief), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rotker, J.),rendered March 22, 2005, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts), robbery inthe second degree (two counts), burglary in the first degree, attempted escape in the first degree,criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and assault in the second degree (twocounts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial,after a hearing, of those branches of the defendant's omnibus motion which were to suppressphysical evidence and his lineup identification.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The hearing court properly denied those branches of the defendant's omnibus motion whichwere to suppress physical evidence obtained from his home and the lineup identification. "Thecredibility determinations of a hearing court are entitled to great deference on appeal, and willnot be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record" (People v Jenneman, 37 AD3d 736, 737 [2007]; see People vCristobal, 136 AD2d 558 [1988]). The record supports the hearing court's determination tocredit the testimony of the police witness, which established that the defendant's mothervoluntarily consented to the search of the defendant's home that he shared with her (seePeople v Gonzalez, 39 NY2d 122 [1976]) and that the lineup identification procedure wasnot improperly conducted.[*2]
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see Peoplev Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Spolzino, J.P., Skelos, Florio and Angiolillo, JJ., concur.