| People v Williams |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 04655 [118 AD3d 1478] |
| June 20, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v IraWilliams, Appellant. |
Linda M. Campbell, Syracuse, for defendant-appellant.
William J. Fitzpatrick, District Attorney, Syracuse (James P. Maxwell of counsel),for respondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (John J. Brunetti,A.J.), rendered September 12, 2011. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea ofguilty, of attempted burglary in the second degree and conspiracy in the fourthdegree.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimouslyaffirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea ofguilty of, inter alia, attempted burglary in the second degree (Penal Law§§ 110.00, 140.25 [2]). Defendant contends that the showupidentification procedure was unduly suggestive because he was standing next to acodefendant known to the victim and the People failed to demonstrate that the showupidentification procedure was conducted in temporal proximity to the crime. Althoughdefendant failed to preserve the latter contention for our review (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v Lewis, 97AD3d 1097, 1097-1098 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 1103 [2012]), weconclude in any event that both contentions lack merit. "Although showup identificationprocedures are generally disfavored . . . , such procedures are permitted'where [they are] reasonable under the circumstances—that is, when conducted inclose geographic and temporal proximity to the crime—and the procedure usedwas not unduly suggestive' " (Lewis, 97 AD3d at 1098). Although onesuspect was known to the victim, the victim identified defendant independently, relyingon his skin tone and distinctive hairstyle, such that there is no reason to disturb SupremeCourt's suppression ruling on that ground (see People v Brisco, 99 NY2d 596,597 [2003]). Furthermore, with respect to defendant's contention concerning temporalproximity, the People established at the Wade hearing that the showupidentification procedure was reasonable because it was conducted within 20 to 30minutes from the initial report of the crime and suspects fleeing, and "in the course of acontinuous, ongoing investigation" (People v Bassett, 112 AD3d 1321, 1322 [2013]). Contraryto defendant's further contention, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.Present—Scudder, P.J., Fahey, Peradotto, Valentino and DeJoseph, JJ.