The court properly denied defendant's suppression motion. The prompt, on-the-scene showup identification was not rendered unduly suggestive by the officer's remark to the witness that the police had a suspect or by the fact that defendant was handcuffed and under police guard ( see e.g. People v. Smith, 271 AD2d 332, lv denied 95 NY2d 871; People v. Edwards, 259 AD2d 343, lv denied 93 NY2d 969).
The court's Sandoval ruling balanced the appropriate factors and was a proper exercise of discretion ( see People v. Hayes, 97 NY2d 203; People v. Walker, 83 NY2d 455, 458-459; People v. Pavao, 59 NY2d 282, 292). Defendant's theft-related convictions were highly relevant to his credibility.
The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant's mistrial motion made after a police witness briefly mentioned defendant's parole status. The court's prompt and thorough curative instructions were sufficient to prevent any prejudice ( see People v. Santiago, 52 NY2d 865).
Defendant's constitutional challenge to the procedure under which he was sentenced as a persistent violent felony offender is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, is without merit ( see People v. Rosen, 96 NY2d 329, cert denied 534 US 899). Defendant's mandatory sentence as a persistent violent felony offender was triggered solely by his prior convictions ( see Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 US 224).
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.