People v. Barnett

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Barnett

275 A.D.2d 718, 713 N.Y.S.2d 476, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9136

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

DecidedSeptember 11, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 275 A.D.2d 718 (People v. Barnett) 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. Barnett, 275 A.D.2d 718, 713 N.Y.S.2d 476, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9136 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal, by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (D’Emic, J.), rendered June 25, 1997, convicting him of manslaughter in the second degree (two counts) and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence and statements he made to law enforcement authorities.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention on appeal, the hear[719]*719ing court properly denied his motion to suppress his written statement (see, People v Rodney, 85 NY2d 289; People v Tarsia, 50 NY2d 1; People v Anderson, 42 NY2d 35).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either without merit or do not warrant reversal (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230). Ritter, J. P., Sullivan, Florio and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal, by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (D’Emic, J.), rendered June 25, 1997, convicting him of manslaughter in the second degree (two counts) and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence and statements he made to law enforcement authorities.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention on appeal, the hear[719]*719ing court properly denied his motion to suppress his written statement (see, People v Rodney, 85 NY2d 289; People v Tarsia, 50 NY2d 1; People v Anderson, 42 NY2d 35).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either without merit or do not warrant reversal (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230). Ritter, J. P., Sullivan, Florio and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 A.D.2d 718, 713 N.Y.S.2d 476, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9136, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-barnett-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack