People v. DavisPeople v. Davis
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: In appeal No. 1, defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of burglary in the second degree (
Also contrary to defendant‘s contention, the showup identification procedure, which was conducted in geographic and temporal proximity to the crime, was not unduly suggestive (see People v Ortiz, 90 NY2d 533, 537 [1997]; People v Duuvon, 77 NY2d 541, 544 [1991]). The fact that defendant was removed from a police car does not render the showup identification procedure unduly suggestive (see People v Ponder, 19 AD3d 1041, 1043 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 809 [2005]), nor does the fact that he was in handcuffs and was standing next to two police officers render it unduly suggestive (see People v Delarosa, 28 AD3d 1186, 1187 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 811 [2006]). Finally, we reject the contention of defendant that Supreme Court erred in refusing to suppress his statements to the police. Although defendant contended that his physical condition prevented him from validly waiving his Miranda rights, the testimony presented by the People at the suppression hearing established that defendant did not appear to be intoxicated and that he was able to understand and respond to the questions posed to him. Great deference is afforded the findings of the suppression court (see People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]), and we conclude that the court properly determined that defendant “was not intoxicated to such a degree that he was incapable of voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waiving his Miranda rights” (People v Downey, 254 AD2d 794, 795 [1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 1031 [1998]).
Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Gorski, Martoche, Lunn and Peradotto, JJ.