From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Sanchez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 23, 1987
128 A.D.2d 816 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Opinion

March 23, 1987

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nastasi, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The hearing court concluded that the failure on the part of the People to preserve a record of the photographic arrays shown to the two witnesses about a week after the robbery gave rise to an inference, which the People failed to rebut, that the arrays were suggestive (People v. Scatliffe, 117 A.D.2d 827; People v Johnson, 106 A.D.2d 469). However, it further concluded that an independent source existed for in-court identifications of the defendant by the witnesses (see, People v. Pleasant, 54 N.Y.2d 972, cert denied 455 U.S. 924; People v. Scatliffe, supra). We agree. The record discloses that both witnesses had ample opportunity to view the defendant at the scene of the crime and each gave a detailed and accurate description of the defendant to the police immediately following the crime.

Further, there was no abuse of discretion in the court's denial of the defendant's motion, which was opposed by the People, to remove his case to the Family Court. While defendant, who was 15 years old at the time of the crime, was eligible for such consideration (CPL 210.43; 1.20 [42]), he had been identified by two witnesses as an active participant in a violent crime and it cannot be said that this was an exceptional case where such removal was required (see, Matter of Vega v. Bell, 47 N.Y.2d 543, 553; CPL 210.43).

Finally, the court properly refused to adjudicate the defendant as a youthful offender since he was not an "eligible youth" as a result of his prior adjudication as a youthful offender following a conviction for robbery in the second degree (CPL 720.10 [c]; People v. Kane, 100 A.D.2d 944; People v. Green, 75 A.D.2d 625). Nor do we find any mitigating circumstances at bar which would require that the court sentence the defendant as a youthful offender, not withstanding his prior adjudication (CPL 720.10).

We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Brown, J.P., Lawrence, Eiber and Sullivan, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Sanchez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 23, 1987
128 A.D.2d 816 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)
Case details for

People v. Sanchez

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ERNEST SANCHEZ…

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

Date published: Mar 23, 1987

Citations

128 A.D.2d 816 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Citing Cases

People v. Woods

The defendant, who was 15 years old at the time the crime was committed, contends that the court erred in…

People v. Tyler L.

We reject that contention. The court properly considered the statutory factors ( seeCPL 210.43[2] ), and it…