People v. Daniels

Oct 17, 2005
Versions:22 A.D.3d 678
804 N.Y.S.2d 345

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the hearing court correctly refused to suppress the identification testimony of a witness who selected him from a lineup, as the lineup was not unduly suggestive (see People v Ortiz, 273 AD2d 482 [2000]; People v Cintron, 226 AD2d 390 [1996]). In addition, the court correctly refused to suppress certain physical evidence that the police seized during a warrantless search of the defendant’s bedroom, as the defendant’s mother, who had the authority to consent to the search (People v Moorer, 58 AD2d 878 [1977]), voluntarily gave that consent (see People v Boylan, 111 AD2d 928 [1985]). The court also correctly refused to suppress incriminating statements that the defendant made to detectives soon after his arrest, as the arrest was supported by probable cause (see People v Rios, 11 AD3d 641 [2004]; People v Walton, 309 AD2d 956 [2003]), and was not in violation of Payton v New York (445 US 573 [1980]). .

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]) or without merit.

Cozier, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein and Lunn, JJ., concur.