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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 23, 1996·Published·Cited by 6 cases

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.

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

226 A.D.2d 245 (People v. Lang) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related