People v. Ramos

Nov 17, 2006
Versions:34 A.D.3d 1363
824 N.Y.S.2d 508

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15 [4]). Contrary to the contention of defendant, the police had the requisite reasonable suspicion to stop and detain him for a showup identification procedure (see People v Barnes, 4 AD3d 433 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 636 [2004]). Defendant fit the general description of one of the suspects and, within minutes of the crime, was observed by police in proximity to the crime scene (see People v Wiley, 32 AD3d 1352 [2006]).

Contrary to defendant‘s further contention, County Court properly determined that the showup identification procedure was not unduly suggestive (see generally People v Ortiz, 90 NY2d 533, 537 [1997]). After obtaining a more complete description of the suspect from the victim, a police officer asked defendant to accompany him, and defendant willingly did so. Defendant was not handcuffed and was driven 2½ miles from the scene, where he then stood approximately 10 feet from the victim in well-lit conditions, and was identified by the victim approximately one hour after the robbery. We therefore conclude that “the procedures used were reasonable under the circumstances” (People v Brisco, 99 NY2d 596, 597 [2003]). Present—Scudder, J.P., Kehoe, Gorski, Smith and Pine, JJ.