People v. Koegel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Koegel

256 A.D.2d 1119, 684 N.Y.S.2d 452, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14222

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

DecidedDecember 31, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 256 A.D.2d 1119 (People v. Koegel) 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. Koegel, 256 A.D.2d 1119, 684 N.Y.S.2d 452, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14222 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied the motion to suppress defendant’s statement to the police. The record supports the court’s determination that the statement was voluntarily made (see, CPL 60.45; People v Towndrow, 236 AD2d 821, 822, lv denied 89 NY2d 1016; People v Garcia, 216 AD2d 319, lv denied 86 NY2d 842). Upon our review of the record, we conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). We further conclude that defendant’s admissions were sufficiently corroborated to support the conviction of prostitution (see, CPL 60.50; People v Chico, 90 NY2d 585, 589-590). The contention of defendant that the statute defining prostitution (Penal Law § 230.00) is unconstitutional as applied to him has not been preserved for our review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Iannelli, 69 NY2d 684, 685, cert denied 482 US 914), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Brunetti, J. — Murder, 2nd Degree.) Present — Green, J. P., Wisner, Hayes, Balio and Fallon, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied the motion to suppress defendant’s statement to the police. The record supports the court’s determination that the statement was voluntarily made (see, CPL 60.45; People v Towndrow, 236 AD2d 821, 822, lv denied 89 NY2d 1016; People v Garcia, 216 AD2d 319, lv denied 86 NY2d 842). Upon our review of the record, we conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). We further conclude that defendant’s admissions were sufficiently corroborated to support the conviction of prostitution (see, CPL 60.50; People v Chico, 90 NY2d 585, 589-590). The contention of defendant that the statute defining prostitution (Penal Law § 230.00) is unconstitutional as applied to him has not been preserved for our review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Iannelli, 69 NY2d 684, 685, cert denied 482 US 914), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Brunetti, J. — Murder, 2nd Degree.) Present — Green, J. P., Wisner, Hayes, Balio and Fallon, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D.2d 1119, 684 N.Y.S.2d 452, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14222, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-koegel-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack