People v. Bonefonte

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Bonefonte

294 A.D.2d 590, 742 N.Y.S.2d 569, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5546

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

DecidedMay 28, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 294 A.D.2d 590 (People v. Bonefonte) 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. Bonefonte, 294 A.D.2d 590, 742 N.Y.S.2d 569, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5546 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marrus, J.), rendered March 29, 1999, convicting him of murder in the second degree and robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress his statements to law enforcement officials.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, he was not subjected to a custodial interrogation before he was given his Miranda rights (see Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436). Under the circumstances, it is clear that “a person innocent of any crime” would not have believed that he was under arrest (see People v Bush, 220 AD2d 607; People v Walls, 199 AD2d 292). Accordingly, the hearing court properly denied suppression of the statements made to the police officers.

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Prudenti, P.J., Smith, Friedmann and Adams, 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 (Marrus, J.), rendered March 29, 1999, convicting him of murder in the second degree and robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress his statements to law enforcement officials.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, he was not subjected to a custodial interrogation before he was given his Miranda rights (see Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436). Under the circumstances, it is clear that “a person innocent of any crime” would not have believed that he was under arrest (see People v Bush, 220 AD2d 607; People v Walls, 199 AD2d 292). Accordingly, the hearing court properly denied suppression of the statements made to the police officers.

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Prudenti, P.J., Smith, Friedmann and Adams, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

294 A.D.2d 590, 742 N.Y.S.2d 569, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5546, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-bonefonte-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack