| People v Curtis |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 02576 [71 AD3d 1044] |
| March 23, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Keane Curtis, Appellant. |
—[*1] William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Joan H. McCarthy of counsel),for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Dolan, J.),rendered May 6, 2008, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts), robbery in thesecond degree (three counts), and burglary in the first degree (three counts), upon a jury verdict,and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branchof the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The hearing court properly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which wasto suppress identification testimony. A photographic array is suggestive where somecharacteristic of an individual's picture draws the viewer's attention to it, indicating that thepolice have made a particular selection (see People v Wright, 297 AD2d 391 [2002];People v Williams, 289 AD2d 270, 270-271 [2001]; People v Cherry, 150 AD2d475, 475-476 [1989]). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the various persons depicted in thephotographic array used in the pretrial identification procedure were sufficiently similar inappearance to the defendant that there was little likelihood the defendant would be singled outfor identification based on particular characteristics (see People v Howard, 50 AD3d 823[2008]; People v Ragunauth, 24 AD3d 472 [2005]; People v Burke, 251 AD2d424 [1998]).
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to sustain hisconviction is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People vHawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492 [2008]; People v Huertas, 65 AD3d 594 [2009]). In anyevent, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People vContes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish thedefendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct anindependent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People vDanielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury'sopportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe their demeanor (seePeople v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946 [2004];People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we aresatisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People vRomero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).[*2]
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see Peoplev Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit. Rivera, J.P., Angiolillo, Dickersonand Roman, JJ., concur.