People v. Guinta

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Guinta

162 A.D.2d 970, 557 N.Y.S.2d 194, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9710

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

DecidedJune 22, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 162 A.D.2d 970 (People v. Guinta) 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. Guinta, 162 A.D.2d 970, 557 N.Y.S.2d 194, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9710 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: There is no merit to the defendant’s claim that his statements to the police were involuntarily made. Defendant voluntarily went to police headquarters and willingly submitted to interrogation. He was told initially that he was free to leave. He was not physically abused, mistreated, or coerced in any way. Defendant was advised of his Miranda rights on three occasions and each time agreed to waive them. The length of the interrogation, without more, does not render the statements obtained during that period inadmissible (People v Tarsia, 50 NY2d 1, 12-13).

Defendant’s claim that he was denied effective assistance of counsel lacks merit. Defense counsel’s reference to defendant’s parole status was a reasonably plausible trial strategy decision (see, People v Zaborski, 59 NY2d 863) because it provided some excuse for defendant’s attempt to secrete the victim’s body and for his failure to notify the police timely.

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Jefferson County Court, Clary, J.—murder, second degree.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Green, Lawton, Davis and Lowery, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: There is no merit to the defendant’s claim that his statements to the police were involuntarily made. Defendant voluntarily went to police headquarters and willingly submitted to interrogation. He was told initially that he was free to leave. He was not physically abused, mistreated, or coerced in any way. Defendant was advised of his Miranda rights on three occasions and each time agreed to waive them. The length of the interrogation, without more, does not render the statements obtained during that period inadmissible (People v Tarsia, 50 NY2d 1, 12-13).

Defendant’s claim that he was denied effective assistance of counsel lacks merit. Defense counsel’s reference to defendant’s parole status was a reasonably plausible trial strategy decision (see, People v Zaborski, 59 NY2d 863) because it provided some excuse for defendant’s attempt to secrete the victim’s body and for his failure to notify the police timely.

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Jefferson County Court, Clary, J.—murder, second degree.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Green, Lawton, Davis and Lowery, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

162 A.D.2d 970, 557 N.Y.S.2d 194, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9710, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-guinta-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack