People v. Barker

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Barker

168 A.D.2d 211, 562 N.Y.S.2d 97, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14749

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

DecidedDecember 4, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 168 A.D.2d 211 (People v. Barker) 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. Barker, 168 A.D.2d 211, 562 N.Y.S.2d 97, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14749 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Ira Globerman, J., at suppression hearing; Steven Barrett, J., at plea and sentence), rendered September 15, 1989, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of manslaughter in the first degree and burglary in the first degree and sentencing him to concurrent indeterminate terms of 8(0 to 25 years and 12 Vi to 25 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

On the night of October 29, 1988, defendant and his brother went to a social club at East 219th Street in the Bronx intending to commit armed robbery. Defendant was armed with an Uzi semiautomatic weapon. During the attempted robbery, defendant’s brother shot and killed a patron. Defendant and his brother were apprehended while fleeing and attempting to dispose of the weapons. Defendant’s transfer to central booking for arraignment was delayed in order to [212]*212investigate defendant’s connection with the shootings. Over the course of approximately 16 hours following arrest, defendant made several statements to the police, and eventually, a confession, which was videotaped.

Defendant argues that the unreasonable delay in arraignment constitutes an extraordinary circumstance such that defendant’s right to counsel should be deemed to have attached. We disagree. Such delays do not cause the right to counsel to attach automatically and are but one factor to be considered on the issue of underlying involuntariness (see, People v Hopkins, 58 NY2d 1079). In this case, the delay in arraignment was justified in light of the ongoing investigation.

Also without merit is defendant’s contention that his sentence was excessive. Defendant was sentenced in accordance with his plea bargain, and having received the benefit of his bargain, should be bound by its terms (People v Bosque, 155 AD2d 377), which in the circumstances we believe to be justified. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Sullivan, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

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

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Ira Globerman, J., at suppression hearing; Steven Barrett, J., at plea and sentence), rendered September 15, 1989, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of manslaughter in the first degree and burglary in the first degree and sentencing him to concurrent indeterminate terms of 8(0 to 25 years and 12 Vi to 25 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

On the night of October 29, 1988, defendant and his brother went to a social club at East 219th Street in the Bronx intending to commit armed robbery. Defendant was armed with an Uzi semiautomatic weapon. During the attempted robbery, defendant’s brother shot and killed a patron. Defendant and his brother were apprehended while fleeing and attempting to dispose of the weapons. Defendant’s transfer to central booking for arraignment was delayed in order to [212]*212investigate defendant’s connection with the shootings. Over the course of approximately 16 hours following arrest, defendant made several statements to the police, and eventually, a confession, which was videotaped.

Defendant argues that the unreasonable delay in arraignment constitutes an extraordinary circumstance such that defendant’s right to counsel should be deemed to have attached. We disagree. Such delays do not cause the right to counsel to attach automatically and are but one factor to be considered on the issue of underlying involuntariness (see, People v Hopkins, 58 NY2d 1079). In this case, the delay in arraignment was justified in light of the ongoing investigation.

Also without merit is defendant’s contention that his sentence was excessive. Defendant was sentenced in accordance with his plea bargain, and having received the benefit of his bargain, should be bound by its terms (People v Bosque, 155 AD2d 377), which in the circumstances we believe to be justified. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Sullivan, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 A.D.2d 211, 562 N.Y.S.2d 97, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14749, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-barker-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack