People v. Frank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Frank

186 A.D.2d 1062, 590 N.Y.S.2d 772, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11692

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

DecidedOctober 7, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 186 A.D.2d 1062 (People v. Frank) 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. Frank, 186 A.D.2d 1062, 590 N.Y.S.2d 772, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11692 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: On appeal from numerous convictions arising out of his brutal sexual assaults upon two women in the City of Geneva, defendant contends that his sentence is excessive and that the court erred in denying suppression of his first, third and fourth statements to police (defendant’s second statement was suppressed as violative of his right to counsel).

The court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant to an aggregate 8V2 to 25 V2 years for his calculated and predatory attacks. Further, the court properly denied suppression. With respect to the first statement, the record supports the suppression court’s finding that defendant was twice advised of his Miranda rights, and each time expressly indicated that he understood his rights, before being questioned. With respect to defendant’s third and fourth statements, the proof is uncontroverted that they were spontaneous and, as a matter of law, attenuated from the prior constitutional violation (see, People v Stoesser, 53 NY2d 648; People v Maerling, 46 NY2d 289, 302; see generally, Rhode Is. v Innis, 446 US 291, 300-301). (Appeal from Judgment of Ontario County Court, Henry, Jr., J. — Burglary, 2nd Degree.) Present — Denman, P. J., Pine, Lawton, Boehm and Davis, JJ.

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

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: On appeal from numerous convictions arising out of his brutal sexual assaults upon two women in the City of Geneva, defendant contends that his sentence is excessive and that the court erred in denying suppression of his first, third and fourth statements to police (defendant’s second statement was suppressed as violative of his right to counsel).

The court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant to an aggregate 8V2 to 25 V2 years for his calculated and predatory attacks. Further, the court properly denied suppression. With respect to the first statement, the record supports the suppression court’s finding that defendant was twice advised of his Miranda rights, and each time expressly indicated that he understood his rights, before being questioned. With respect to defendant’s third and fourth statements, the proof is uncontroverted that they were spontaneous and, as a matter of law, attenuated from the prior constitutional violation (see, People v Stoesser, 53 NY2d 648; People v Maerling, 46 NY2d 289, 302; see generally, Rhode Is. v Innis, 446 US 291, 300-301). (Appeal from Judgment of Ontario County Court, Henry, Jr., J. — Burglary, 2nd Degree.) Present — Denman, P. J., Pine, Lawton, Boehm and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

186 A.D.2d 1062, 590 N.Y.S.2d 772, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11692, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-frank-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack