People v Flow

People v Flow 2012 NY Slip Op 06872 Decided on October 16, 2012 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on October 16, 2012
Gonzalez, P.J., Sweeny, Acosta, Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
8294 5391/08

[*1]The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

v

Charlie Flow, etc., Defendant-Appellant.




Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Jan
Hoth of counsel), and DLA Piper LLP, New York (Robert C.
Santoro of counsel), for appellant.
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Sylvia
Wertheimer of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (A. Kirke Bartley, Jr., J.), rendered April 27, 2010, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree (four counts) and robbery in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to an aggregate term of 25 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). The five bank robberies formed such a distinctive pattern, and were so interconnected, that they could only have been committed by the same person. Fingerprint evidence established defendant's guilt of one of the robberies, thereby connecting him circumstantially to all of them, and his challenges to the fingerprint evidence are unavailing. In addition, there were reliable identifications as to four of the robberies, as well as other evidence such as surveillance videotapes and photographs.

The court properly declined to reopen the Wade hearing based on trial testimony about conversations between witnesses that occurred before the witnesses separately made lineup identifications. This testimony could not have had any effect on the suppression issue (see People v Clark, 88 NY2d 552, 555 [1996]). The new information revealed at trial did not contradict any hearing testimony (compare People v Olmo, 153 AD2d 544 [1st Dept 1989]), and [*2]it went to the weight to be accorded the identifications rather than their admissibility (see People v Bazil, 309 AD2d 596, 597 [1st Dept 2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 568 [2003]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: OCTOBER 16, 2012

CLERK