People v. Fergus

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Fergus

270 A.D.2d 357, 704 N.Y.S.2d 864, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2679

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

DecidedMarch 13, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 270 A.D.2d 357 (People v. Fergus) 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. Fergus, 270 A.D.2d 357, 704 N.Y.S.2d 864, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2679 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Tomei, J.), rendered March 13, 1998, convicting him of burglary in the first degree (five counts), rape in the first degree (three counts), sodomy in the first degree (two counts), robbery in the first degree (two counts), and menacing in the second 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 statements he made to law enforcement officials.

[358]*358Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

An effective waiver of Miranda rights may be made by an individual of subnormal intelligence, as long as it is established that he or she understood the immediate meaning of the warnings (see, Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436; People v Williams, 62 NY2d 285, 289; People v Corona, 173 AD2d 484; People v Avilez, 121 AD2d 391). Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, the record supports the hearing court’s determination that his waiver of his Miranda rights was valid (see, People v Williams, supra; People v Esmail, 260 AD2d 396).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are meritless. Thompson, J. P., S. Miller, Florio and Schmidt, 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 (Tomei, J.), rendered March 13, 1998, convicting him of burglary in the first degree (five counts), rape in the first degree (three counts), sodomy in the first degree (two counts), robbery in the first degree (two counts), and menacing in the second 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 statements he made to law enforcement officials.

[358]*358Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

An effective waiver of Miranda rights may be made by an individual of subnormal intelligence, as long as it is established that he or she understood the immediate meaning of the warnings (see, Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436; People v Williams, 62 NY2d 285, 289; People v Corona, 173 AD2d 484; People v Avilez, 121 AD2d 391). Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, the record supports the hearing court’s determination that his waiver of his Miranda rights was valid (see, People v Williams, supra; People v Esmail, 260 AD2d 396).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are meritless. Thompson, J. P., S. Miller, Florio and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

270 A.D.2d 357, 704 N.Y.S.2d 864, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2679, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-fergus-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack