People v. Dunkley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Dunkley

200 A.D.2d 499, 606 N.Y.S.2d 638, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 461

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

DecidedJanuary 20, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 200 A.D.2d 499 (People v. Dunkley) 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. Dunkley, 200 A.D.2d 499, 606 N.Y.S.2d 638, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 461 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Donald Zimmerman, J., at Huntley hearing; Jack Rosenberg, J., at plea and sentence), rendered December 21, 1981, convicting defendant, upon his guilty plea, of manslaughter in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of 6 to 21 years, unanimously affirmed.

Since the first officer at the scene testified that he gave Miranda warnings from a standardized card, this was suffi[500]*500cient proof upon which to draw the inference that the warnings were correctly given, even though the card was neither placed in evidence nor read into the record and the officer was unable to correctly recite the warnings from memory (People v Chaplin, 159 AD2d 209, 210, lv denied 75 NY2d 964). Even if we were to find defendant’s statement to the first officer at the scene inadmissible, we would find defendant’s statement to the investigating officer over an hour later, which followed undisputedly correct warnings, to be admissible because of the definite, pronounced break in the interrogation (People v Vientos, 164 AD2d 122, 127, affd 79 NY2d 771).

Furthermore, defendant clearly understood the meaning of the warnings and thus was not mentally incompetent to waive his rights (People v Williams, 62 NY2d 285, 290).

Finally, given the heinous nature of the crime, the bargained-for sentence was not excessive. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Asch, Rubin, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Donald Zimmerman, J., at Huntley hearing; Jack Rosenberg, J., at plea and sentence), rendered December 21, 1981, convicting defendant, upon his guilty plea, of manslaughter in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of 6 to 21 years, unanimously affirmed.

Since the first officer at the scene testified that he gave Miranda warnings from a standardized card, this was suffi[500]*500cient proof upon which to draw the inference that the warnings were correctly given, even though the card was neither placed in evidence nor read into the record and the officer was unable to correctly recite the warnings from memory (People v Chaplin, 159 AD2d 209, 210, lv denied 75 NY2d 964). Even if we were to find defendant’s statement to the first officer at the scene inadmissible, we would find defendant’s statement to the investigating officer over an hour later, which followed undisputedly correct warnings, to be admissible because of the definite, pronounced break in the interrogation (People v Vientos, 164 AD2d 122, 127, affd 79 NY2d 771).

Furthermore, defendant clearly understood the meaning of the warnings and thus was not mentally incompetent to waive his rights (People v Williams, 62 NY2d 285, 290).

Finally, given the heinous nature of the crime, the bargained-for sentence was not excessive. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Asch, Rubin, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

200 A.D.2d 499, 606 N.Y.S.2d 638, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 461, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-dunkley-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack