People v. Coleman

611 N.E.2d 285, 81 N.Y.2d 826, 595 N.Y.S.2d 384, 1993 N.Y. LEXIS 100
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedFebruary 23, 1993
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 611 N.E.2d 285 (People v. Coleman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
People v. Coleman, 611 N.E.2d 285, 81 N.Y.2d 826, 595 N.Y.S.2d 384, 1993 N.Y. LEXIS 100 (N.Y. 1993).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the case remitted to County Court, Sullivan County, for further proceedings in accordance with this memorandum. As to [827]*827counts one and two of the indictment, there should be a new trial. Defendant’s plea of guilty to count three in satisfaction of counts three and four of the indictment should be vacated and further proceedings had on those counts of the indictment.

Defendant was convicted, following a jury trial, of counts one and two of an indictment, burglary in the second degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the first degree. Following that trial defendant pleaded guilty to count three of the indictment in satisfaction of counts three and four, which had been severed from counts one and two.

Prior to trial defendant moved to suppress physical evidence, a motion which was denied. Before the end of the suppression hearing, defendant, an indigent, requested a free transcript of the suppression hearing, "a fundamental constitutional right” (People v West, 29 NY2d 728, 729; People v Sanders, 31 NY2d 463). Subsequently, in two letters the County Court was informed of the request. No transcript was provided either before the court rendered its decision on the motion to suppress or prior to trial which took place some eight months after the suppression hearing. Forcing the defendant to trial without the transcript was error. Irrespective of the facts here, the better practice, as the Appellate Division concluded, is to put on the record at the suppression hearing that a transcript has been ordered.

Acting Chief Judge Simons and Judges Kaye, Titone, Hancock, Jr., Bellacosa and Smith concur in memorandum.

Order reversed, etc.

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

Related

People v. Washington
2025 NY Slip Op 25265 (County Court of New York, Putnam County, 2025)
People v. Martinez
2023 NY Slip Op 34720(U) (Westchester County Court, 2023)
People v. Williams
2022 NY Slip Op 34776(U) (Westchester County Court, 2022)
People v. Stacchini
108 A.D.3d 866 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
People v. Typhair
12 A.D.3d 832 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
People v. Oglesby
276 A.D.2d 647 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
People v. Shabazz
246 A.D.2d 831 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Metts v. Miller
995 F. Supp. 283 (E.D. New York, 1997)
People v. Williams
243 A.D.2d 833 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
People v. Cuddy
210 A.D.2d 730 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
People v. Sanchez
643 N.E.2d 509 (New York Court of Appeals, 1994)
People v. Nelson
197 A.D.2d 744 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
611 N.E.2d 285, 81 N.Y.2d 826, 595 N.Y.S.2d 384, 1993 N.Y. LEXIS 100, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-coleman-ny-1993.