In this criminal appeal, the certified issues concern the admissibility of identification evidence and the propriety of joining various unrelated criminal charges in a single trial. The defendant, Adrian Kang, appealed to the Appellate Court from his conviction, after a jury trial, of four counts of robbery in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-134 (a) (4), one count of robbery in the first degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-134 (a) (4) and 53a-8, and one count of criminal possession of a firearm in violation of General Statutes § 53a-217.1 The Appellate *404Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court. State v. King, 35 Conn. App. 781, 794, 647 A.2d 25 (1994). We granted the defendant’s petition for certification to appeal limited to two of the issues that he had raised in the Appellate Court.2
After examining the record on appeal, and after considering the briefs and arguments of the parties, we conclude that the judgment of the Appellate Court must be affirmed. The Appellate Court carefully analyzed and rejected the defendant’s claim that the trial court should have suppressed, on constitutional grounds, identifications made by three of the defendant’s victims at his arraignment for unrelated crimes. The Appellate Court properly concluded that the identifications had not been impermissibly suggestive and that, even if they had been, they were rehable under the totality of the circum*405stances. Id., 788-89. The Appellate Court, with similar care, analyzed and rejected the defendant’s claim that he was unfairly prejudiced by the trial court’s failure to sever the charges pending against him. The Appellate Court properly concluded that, in the factual circumstances revealed by the record in this case, the defendant had failed to establish that joinder had resulted in substantial injustice to him. Id., 793. In light of our agreement with the Appellate Court’s thoughtful resolution of both issues,3 it would serve no useful purpose for us to repeat the discussion contained in its comprehensive opinion. See State v. Wieler, 233 Conn. 552, 556, 660 A.2d 740 (1995); State v. Robins, 233 Conn. 527, 531, 660 A.2d 738 (1995); State v. Rivera, 228 Conn. 756, 758, 638 A.2d 34 (1994); State v. Johnson, 228 Conn. 59, 61, 634 A.2d 293 (1993).
The judgment of the Appellate Court is affirmed.