People v. Jones

Jan 17, 2006
Versions:25 A.D.3d 622
806 N.Y.S.2d 885

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant‘s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]).

Furthermore, the Supreme Court properly determined that the photographic and showup identifications of the defendant by the undercover officer were confirmatory in nature and that the defendant was not entitled to a Wade hearing (see United States v Wade, 388 US 218 [1967]; People v Wharton, 74 NY2d 921 [1989]; People v Quinones, 292 AD2d 239 [2002]; see also People v Smith, 293 AD2d 764 [2002]; cf. People v Rodriguez, 79 NY2d 445 [1992]).

We decline to exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction to dismiss the non-inclusory concurrent counts of the indictment (see People v Johnson, 297 AD2d 822 [2002]; People v Ramos, 15 AD3d 236 [2005]).

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

The defendant‘s remaining contentions, raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are without merit. Cozier, J.P., Goldstein, Fisher and Dillon, JJ., concur.