People v. Ingraham

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ingraham

172 A.D.2d 870, 567 N.Y.S.2d 946, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4263

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

DecidedApril 4, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 172 A.D.2d 870 (People v. Ingraham) 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. Ingraham, 172 A.D.2d 870, 567 N.Y.S.2d 946, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4263 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Monserrate, J.), rendered February 26, 1987, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of burglary in the first degree.

The record supports County Court’s findings that defendant voluntarily made a statement after he was given his Miranda warnings, did not request to speak to an attorney and was not promised anything by the detectives. Any conflict in the testimony given at the suppression hearing merely presented a credibility question for County Court to resolve (see, People v Munhall, 92 AD2d 1060, 1061) and its determination will only be rejected on appeal if unsupported as a matter of law (see, People v Jackson, 101 AD2d 955, 955-956). In addition, we see no reason to disturb defendant’s prison sentence of 9 to 18 years. He entered into a plea agreement knowing that he would receive the sentence ultimately imposed by County Court and a pending charge of violation of probation was dismissed (see, People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816, 817).

Judgment affirmed. Casey, J. P., Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., Mercure and Crew III, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Monserrate, J.), rendered February 26, 1987, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of burglary in the first degree.

The record supports County Court’s findings that defendant voluntarily made a statement after he was given his Miranda warnings, did not request to speak to an attorney and was not promised anything by the detectives. Any conflict in the testimony given at the suppression hearing merely presented a credibility question for County Court to resolve (see, People v Munhall, 92 AD2d 1060, 1061) and its determination will only be rejected on appeal if unsupported as a matter of law (see, People v Jackson, 101 AD2d 955, 955-956). In addition, we see no reason to disturb defendant’s prison sentence of 9 to 18 years. He entered into a plea agreement knowing that he would receive the sentence ultimately imposed by County Court and a pending charge of violation of probation was dismissed (see, People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816, 817).

Judgment affirmed. Casey, J. P., Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., Mercure and Crew III, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

172 A.D.2d 870, 567 N.Y.S.2d 946, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4263, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ingraham-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack