People v. Baptiste

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Baptiste

172 A.D.2d 363, 568 N.Y.S.2d 621, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4957

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

DecidedApril 23, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 172 A.D.2d 363 (People v. Baptiste) 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. Baptiste, 172 A.D.2d 363, 568 N.Y.S.2d 621, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4957 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Thomas B. Galligan, J., at Huntley hearing, plea and sentence), rendered June 14, 1989, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted manslaughter in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of from 5 to 10 years, to run concurrently with a sentence imposed in another jurisdiction, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s conviction arises out of a drug-related incident in New York County on August 2, 1986, during which Milton Jackson was stabbed, resulting in his death.

In March, 1987, defendant was apprehended by Los Angeles County police acting upon an outstanding warrant on a felony narcotics charge. At the request of New York City police, he was questioned about the stabbing of Milton Jackson. Defendant signed a written statement with respect to that crime which Supreme Court declined to suppress, finding that it was voluntarily made after defendant knowingly waived his Miranda (Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436) rights.

At issue is whether defendant’s right to counsel was violated because the Los Angeles police knew or should have known that defendant was represented by counsel on pending criminal charges in California, unrelated to the homicide in New York. In overruling People v Bartolomeo (53 NY2d 225), the Court of Appeals upheld the interrogation of suspects where "the courts below found that each defendant had knowingly and voluntarily waived their [sic] Miranda rights and that the police questioned solely on matters unrelated to the prior pending charge” (People v Bing, 76 NY2d 331, 351). It reasoned that "permitting questioning on unrelated crimes violates neither the State Constitution nor the ethical principles that concerned us in our prior right to counsel cases” (People v Bing, supra, at 349-350).

The instant matter is not distinguishable. Having waived his right to counsel prior to questioning about the New York [364]*364homicide and having voluntarily given a statement solely with respect to that crime, defendant "voluntarily chose to forego legal representation” (People v Bing, supra, at 349), and his questioning does not abridge his right to counsel (People v Rogers, 48 NY2d 167).

Defendant’s remaining contentions have been examined and found to be without merit. Concur—Carro, J. P., Milonas, Ellerin, Smith and Rubin, JJ.

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

Judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Thomas B. Galligan, J., at Huntley hearing, plea and sentence), rendered June 14, 1989, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted manslaughter in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of from 5 to 10 years, to run concurrently with a sentence imposed in another jurisdiction, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s conviction arises out of a drug-related incident in New York County on August 2, 1986, during which Milton Jackson was stabbed, resulting in his death.

In March, 1987, defendant was apprehended by Los Angeles County police acting upon an outstanding warrant on a felony narcotics charge. At the request of New York City police, he was questioned about the stabbing of Milton Jackson. Defendant signed a written statement with respect to that crime which Supreme Court declined to suppress, finding that it was voluntarily made after defendant knowingly waived his Miranda (Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436) rights.

At issue is whether defendant’s right to counsel was violated because the Los Angeles police knew or should have known that defendant was represented by counsel on pending criminal charges in California, unrelated to the homicide in New York. In overruling People v Bartolomeo (53 NY2d 225), the Court of Appeals upheld the interrogation of suspects where "the courts below found that each defendant had knowingly and voluntarily waived their [sic] Miranda rights and that the police questioned solely on matters unrelated to the prior pending charge” (People v Bing, 76 NY2d 331, 351). It reasoned that "permitting questioning on unrelated crimes violates neither the State Constitution nor the ethical principles that concerned us in our prior right to counsel cases” (People v Bing, supra, at 349-350).

The instant matter is not distinguishable. Having waived his right to counsel prior to questioning about the New York [364]*364homicide and having voluntarily given a statement solely with respect to that crime, defendant "voluntarily chose to forego legal representation” (People v Bing, supra, at 349), and his questioning does not abridge his right to counsel (People v Rogers, 48 NY2d 167).

Defendant’s remaining contentions have been examined and found to be without merit. Concur—Carro, J. P., Milonas, Ellerin, Smith and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

172 A.D.2d 363, 568 N.Y.S.2d 621, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4957, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-baptiste-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack