People v. Almonte

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Almonte

192 A.D.2d 492, 598 N.Y.S.2d 701, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4413

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 29, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 192 A.D.2d 492 (People v. Almonte) 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. Almonte, 192 A.D.2d 492, 598 N.Y.S.2d 701, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4413 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Frank Diaz, J.), rendered March 8, 1991, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the third degree (two counts), and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 2Vz to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s inculpatory statement was given in response to a pedigree question (People v Rodriquez, 39 NY2d 976, 978), which, in the circumstances presented, cannot be said to have been asked for the purpose of eliciting the inculpatory re[493]*493sponse made by defendant. We note the answer voluntarily went beyond the scope of the question. Accordingly, no Miranda warnings were necessary. Defendant failed to object to the court’s statement at sentence about defendant’s "pretending that [he] had a gun” stating that he had been acquitted of all the robbery in the first and second degree charges. The issue is therefore unpreserved for appellate review. We note, however, that defendant received concurrent terms, within the statutory range, and thus, we find no abuse of discretion in sentencing.

We have considered defendant’s remaining claims and find them without merit. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Milonas, Kupferman and Ross, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Frank Diaz, J.), rendered March 8, 1991, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the third degree (two counts), and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 2Vz to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s inculpatory statement was given in response to a pedigree question (People v Rodriquez, 39 NY2d 976, 978), which, in the circumstances presented, cannot be said to have been asked for the purpose of eliciting the inculpatory re[493]*493sponse made by defendant. We note the answer voluntarily went beyond the scope of the question. Accordingly, no Miranda warnings were necessary. Defendant failed to object to the court’s statement at sentence about defendant’s "pretending that [he] had a gun” stating that he had been acquitted of all the robbery in the first and second degree charges. The issue is therefore unpreserved for appellate review. We note, however, that defendant received concurrent terms, within the statutory range, and thus, we find no abuse of discretion in sentencing.

We have considered defendant’s remaining claims and find them without merit. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Milonas, Kupferman and Ross, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

192 A.D.2d 492, 598 N.Y.S.2d 701, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4413, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-almonte-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack