People v. Kunz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Kunz

31 A.D.3d 1191, 817 N.Y.S.2d 824

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 7, 2006·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Richard A. Keenan, J.), rendered July 11, 2003. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.75 [1] [a]). County Court properly refused to suppress statements made by defendant to the police on the ground that the interrogation resulting in those statements was not electronically recorded. Contrary to defendant’s contention, “[t]here is no Federal or State due process requirement that interrogations and confessions be electronically recorded” (People v Falkenstein, 288 AD2d 922, 923 [2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 704 [2002]; see People v Peppard, 27 AD3d 1143, 1144 [2006]). The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Hurlbutt, Martoche, Smith and Green, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Richard A. Keenan, J.), rendered July 11, 2003. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.75 [1] [a]). County Court properly refused to suppress statements made by defendant to the police on the ground that the interrogation resulting in those statements was not electronically recorded. Contrary to defendant’s contention, “[t]here is no Federal or State due process requirement that interrogations and confessions be electronically recorded” (People v Falkenstein, 288 AD2d 922, 923 [2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 704 [2002]; see People v Peppard, 27 AD3d 1143, 1144 [2006]). The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Hurlbutt, Martoche, Smith and Green, JJ.

People v. Kunz, 31 A.D.3d 1191, 817 N.Y.S.2d 824 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

31 A.D.3d 1191 (People v. Kunz) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related