People v. Batista

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Batista

303 A.D.2d 293, 755 N.Y.S.2d 840, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3069

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

DecidedMarch 25, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 303 A.D.2d 293 (People v. Batista) 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. Batista, 303 A.D.2d 293, 755 N.Y.S.2d 840, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3069 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (David Stadtmauer, J.), rendered February 2, 1999, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 10 to 20 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of reducing the sentence to a term of 8 to 16 years, and otherwise affirmed.

Defendant’s suppression motion was properly denied. There is no basis for disturbing the court’s credibility determinations, which are supported by the record (see People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]). The totality of the circumstances supports the hearing court’s finding that defendant’s videotaped statements were voluntarily made (see Arizona v Fulminante, 499 US 279, 285-288 [1991]; People v Anderson, 42 NY2d 35, 38-39 [1977]). The delay in defendant’s arraignment was not excessive and did not render the confession involuntary (see People v Ramos, 99 NY2d 27, 35 [2002]).

The court’s charge on the jury’s role in assessing the voluntariness of defendant’s statements conveyed the proper standards when read as a whole and in the context of the factual issues raised at trial (see People v Fields, 87 NY2d 821 [1995]).

We find the sentence excessive to the extent indicated.

We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining [294]*294claims. Concur — Buckley, P.J., Rosenberger, Lerner, Friedman and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (David Stadtmauer, J.), rendered February 2, 1999, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 10 to 20 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of reducing the sentence to a term of 8 to 16 years, and otherwise affirmed.

Defendant’s suppression motion was properly denied. There is no basis for disturbing the court’s credibility determinations, which are supported by the record (see People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]). The totality of the circumstances supports the hearing court’s finding that defendant’s videotaped statements were voluntarily made (see Arizona v Fulminante, 499 US 279, 285-288 [1991]; People v Anderson, 42 NY2d 35, 38-39 [1977]). The delay in defendant’s arraignment was not excessive and did not render the confession involuntary (see People v Ramos, 99 NY2d 27, 35 [2002]).

The court’s charge on the jury’s role in assessing the voluntariness of defendant’s statements conveyed the proper standards when read as a whole and in the context of the factual issues raised at trial (see People v Fields, 87 NY2d 821 [1995]).

We find the sentence excessive to the extent indicated.

We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining [294]*294claims. Concur — Buckley, P.J., Rosenberger, Lerner, Friedman and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

303 A.D.2d 293, 755 N.Y.S.2d 840, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3069, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-batista-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack