Majority
The court also properly denied that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony. Although the pretrial showup identification was unnecessary and unduly suggestive, there was an independent source for the witness’s identification (see, People v Riley, 70 NY2d 523 , 529; People v Brown, 125 AD2d 321 ; People v Jackson, 108 AD2d 757 ).
Finally, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the defendant’s application to withdraw his plea (see, People v Dixon, 29 NY2d 55 ). The record shows that the defendant knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily chose to plead guilty to the crimes charged and his subsequent assertions of innocence and coercion are unsupported by the record (see, People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9 , 17; People v Matta, 103 AD2d 756 ). Mangano, J. P., Thompson, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- People v. Ingle 36 NY2d 413 p. 635
- People v. Llopis 125 AD2d 416 p. 635
- People v. Seruya 113 AD2d 777 at 779 p. 635
- Colorado v. Bertine 479 US 367 p. 635
- People v. Gonzalez 62 NY2d 386 p. 635
- People v. Gonzalez 39 NY2d 122 p. 635
- People v. Zimmerman 101 AD2d 294 p. 635
- People v. Riley 70 NY2d 523 at 529 p. 635
- People v. Dixon 29 NY2d 55 p. 635
- People v. Harris 61 NY2d 9 at 17 p. 635