People v. Jehle

181 A.D.2d 792, 581 N.Y.S.2d 685, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3717
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 16, 1992
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 181 A.D.2d 792 (People v. Jehle) 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. Jehle, 181 A.D.2d 792, 581 N.Y.S.2d 685, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3717 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Cacciabaudo, J.), rendered February 10, 1989, convicting him of murder in the second degree under Indictment No. 905-87, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence, and (2) a judgment of the same court, rendered March 16, 1989, convicting him of criminal mischief in the second degree under Indictment No. 917-87, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal under Indictment No. 905-87 brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress statements made by him to the police.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

The defendant contends that his statements concerning the murder should have been suppressed on the ground that they [793]*793were obtained as a result of an arrest made without probable cause. However, by failing to specifically present and pursue this contention before the suppression court, the defendant has failed to preserve it for appellate review (see, People v Jiminez, 146 AD2d 713; People v Jones, 81 AD2d 22; People v Martin, 135 AD2d 836).

Similarly, his contention that the police intentionally delayed his arraignment on pending grand larceny, criminal mischief, and arson charges under Indictment No. 917-87, so that they might question him on the separate murder investigation under Indictment No. 905-87, is also unpreserved for our review since he did not advance this contention in his omnibus motion or at the suppression hearing (see, People v Silas, 158 AD2d 561). In any event, his contention is without merit (see, People v Bing, 76 NY2d 331).

We have reviewed the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Balletta, J. P., O’Brien, Copertino and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Bartley v. Senkowski
144 F. App'x 151 (Second Circuit, 2005)
People v. Bartley
230 A.D.2d 748 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
People v. Rivera
221 A.D.2d 667 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
181 A.D.2d 792, 581 N.Y.S.2d 685, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3717, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-jehle-nyappdiv-1992.