THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v SHATEEK LANIER, Appellant.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
15 NYS3d 241
Defendant was indicted for the crimes оf attempted murder in the second degree, assault in the first degree, criminal use of a firearm in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the seсond degree (two counts) in connection with a shooting that occurred in the City of Troy, Rensselaer County in May 2012. Prior to trial, the People moved to amend count twо of the indictment to charge defendant with attempted assault in the first degree instead of assault in the first degree, which motion County Court granted. Following a jury trial, defendant wаs convicted as charged and subsequently sentenced to an aggregate prison term of 20 years, with five years of postrelease supervision. Defendant now аppeals.
Defendant’s convictions for attempted murder in the second degree and attempted assault in the first degree were neither
As is relevant to these inquiries, two eyewitnesses testified that they observed the shooting and further identified defendant as the person who fired a handgun at the victim. Various evidence established that a total of eight shots were fired at the victim, three of which struck him. This evidence was legally sufficient for defendant’s convictions of attempted murder in the first degree and attempted assault in thе first degree (see People v Andrews, 127 AD3d 1417, 1420 [2015], lv denied 25 NY3d 1159 [June 19, 2015]; People v Stewart, 68 AD3d 1438, 1439 [2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 773 [2010]). Although defendant argues that the testimony of the eyewitnesses who identified him as the shooter should be discredited for various reasons—including lighting conditions, thе witnesses’ alleged motivations to fabricate the identification and certain discrepancies between their testimony and their prior statements—the jury was ablе to consider each of these issues now raised and chose to credit the identification of defendant as the shooter. Given the jury’s unique opportunity to “view thе witnesses, hear the testimony and observe demeanor” (People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633, 644 [2006] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]), we defer to their credibility determination and conclude that dеfendant’s convictions were not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Stewart, 68 AD3d at 1439).
County Court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment due to the People’s allegеd failure to provide defendant with adequate notice of grand jury proceedings. The People are required to notify a defendant of a pending grand jury proceeding when, as is the case here, a defendant has been arraigned on a “currently undisposed of felony complaint” (
The uncontested facts establish that the Rensselaer County
Given that
County Court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress the pretrial identifications. “[A] pretrial identificаtion that is unduly suggestive violates due process and is therefore inadmissible against the defendant” (People v Smith, 122 AD3d 1162, 1163 [2014]; see People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 335 [1990], cert denied 498 US 833 [1990]). Accordingly, the relevant characteristics of the individuals included in a рhotograph array must be sufficiently similar so as to not “create a substantial likelihood that the defendant would be singled out for identification” (People v Chipp, 75 NY2d at 336; see People v Matthews, 101 AD3d 1363, 1364 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 1101 [2013]; People v McDonald, 306 AD2d 696, 697 [2003]). The People havе the initial burden of establishing that the po-
Defendant limits his argument to the contention that the two photo arrays1 respectively shown to the two witnesses who thereafter identified defendant’s picture were unduly suggestive, because only defendant’s photograph presented the combination of аge, size and clothing that fit the characteristics previously attributed to the shooter. Our review of the arrays reveals that multiple photographs depicted men wearing hoodies, the same garment the shooter had been reported as wearing. Further, we discern no significant dissimilarity as to the ages of the men depicted, and the photographs are cropped in a manner that renders height comparisons speculative. Accordingly, because the arrays do not creаte a substantial likelihood that defendant would be picked out, County Court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress the pretrial identifications (see People v Matthews, 101 AD3d at 1364; People v Coleman, 2 AD3d 1045, 1046 [2003]; People v McDonald, 306 AD2d at 697).
County Court did not abuse its discretion in regard to its Sandoval ruling. Possession of burglar’s tools is a conviction involving theft (see People v Vetrano, 88 AD3d 750, 750-751 [2011]) and such a conviction is “particularly probative of credibility” (People v Fomby, 101 AD3d 1355, 1357 [2012]; see People v Lemke, 58 AD3d 1078, 1078-1079 [2009]), and not one particularly similar to the charges here. Accordingly, County Court did not abuse its discretion in permitting cross-examination as to the fact that defendant had such a conviction, but not as to underlying facts or the attendant sеntencing (see People v Fomby, 101 AD3d at 1356-1357; People v Vetrano, 88 AD3d at 750-751).
Finally, defendant’s sentence was neither harsh nor excessive. Defendant shot the victim three times and continued to fire at him as the victim attempted to flee. Further, the particular commission of these crimes included defendant endangering the lives of those community members who were near the scene of the shоoting. Given these facts, we do not perceive any abuse of discretion or extraordinary circumstances that would warrant modification of defendant’s sentence (see People v Rabideau, 82 AD3d 1283, 1287 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 799[2011]; People v Lozada, 35 AD3d 969, 971 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 947 [2007]; People v Arnold, 32 AD3d 1051, 1051 [2006]).
Egan Jr., Lynch and Devine, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.