People v. Aguasvivas

2018 NY Slip Op 1155
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 20, 2018
Docket3338/08 5748
StatusPublished

This text of 2018 NY Slip Op 1155 (People v. Aguasvivas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
People v. Aguasvivas, 2018 NY Slip Op 1155 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2018).

Opinion

People v Aguasvivas (2018 NY Slip Op 01155)
People v Aguasvivas
2018 NY Slip Op 01155
Decided on February 20, 2018
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 February 20, 2018
Richter, J.P., Manzanet-Daniels, Andrias, Gesmer, JJ.

3338/08 5748 5749

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

v

Jose Aguasvivas, Defendant-Appellant.


Rosemary Herbert, Office of the Appellate Defender, New York (Anastasia Heeger of counsel), for appellant.

Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx (Andrew J. Zapata of counsel), for respondent.



Appeal from judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John W. Carter, J. at suppression hearing; Barbara Newman, J. at jury trial and sentencing), rendered July 19, 2011, convicting defendant of manslaughter in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of 13 years, and appeal from order, same court (Barbara Newman, J.), entered on or about April 11, 2013, which denied defendant's CPL 440.10 motion to vacate the judgment, held in abeyance, and the matter is remitted to Supreme Court for a new suppression hearing.

At a hearing on his CPL 440.10 motion, defendant made a sufficient showing to warrant a new hearing on his motion to suppress his inculpatory statements. The record developed at the CPL 440.10 hearing, taken together with the records of the suppression hearing and trial, demonstrates that there were challenges to the voluntariness of the statements that should have been asserted at the suppression hearing (see People v Clermont, 22 NY3d 931 [2013]).

At this stage of the appeal, we do not address defendant's remaining claims.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: FEBRUARY 20, 2018

CLERK



Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

People v. Clermont
999 N.E.2d 1149 (New York Court of Appeals, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2018 NY Slip Op 1155, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-aguasvivas-nyappdiv-2018.