People v. Lang

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Lang

226 A.D.2d 245, 641 N.Y.S.2d 258, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3981

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

DecidedApril 23, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 226 A.D.2d 245 (People v. Lang) 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. Lang, 226 A.D.2d 245, 641 N.Y.S.2d 258, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3981 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey Atlas, J., at plea and sentence; Herbert Altman, J., at suppression hearing), rendered May 27,1992, convicting defendant, upon her plea of guilty, of murder in the second degree, and sentencing her to a term of 20 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s motion to suppress statements was properly denied. The record fails to support defendant’s claim that her statements were the product of continuous police interrogation for a period of almost 12 hours. On the contrary, during this period of time, defendant was offered food and drink and there was a break of several hours between the making of written and videotaped statements (compare, People v Anderson, 42 NY2d 35). Nor was there anything defective about the Miranda warnings and waivers (see, People v Dunwoody, 89 AD2d 569, 570). We see no reason to reduce defendant’s bargained-for sentence. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Ellerin, Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey Atlas, J., at plea and sentence; Herbert Altman, J., at suppression hearing), rendered May 27,1992, convicting defendant, upon her plea of guilty, of murder in the second degree, and sentencing her to a term of 20 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s motion to suppress statements was properly denied. The record fails to support defendant’s claim that her statements were the product of continuous police interrogation for a period of almost 12 hours. On the contrary, during this period of time, defendant was offered food and drink and there was a break of several hours between the making of written and videotaped statements (compare, People v Anderson, 42 NY2d 35). Nor was there anything defective about the Miranda warnings and waivers (see, People v Dunwoody, 89 AD2d 569, 570). We see no reason to reduce defendant’s bargained-for sentence. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Ellerin, Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

226 A.D.2d 245, 641 N.Y.S.2d 258, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3981, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lang-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack