People v. Maggese

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Maggese

33 A.D.2d 585, 304 N.Y.S.2d 333, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3111

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

DecidedOctober 20, 1969

StatusPublished

This text of 33 A.D.2d 585 (People v. Maggese) 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. Maggese, 33 A.D.2d 585, 304 N.Y.S.2d 333, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3111 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Aulisi, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County' Court of Chemung County, rendered November 21, 1968, convicting defendant on his plea of guilty of burglary in the third degree. Appellant contends that the record does not support a finding that his confession was voluntary; that the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona (384 U. S. 436) were not properly given; that the determination of voluntariness by the Judge after the hearing pursuant to People v. Huntley (15 N Y 2d 72) Was insufficient; and that the sentence received was excessive. We find nothing in the record before us to merit sustaining these contentions. There is ample evidence, including defendant’s signed statements, to support the finding beyond a reasonable doubt that he was fully apprised of his rights. Judgment affirmed. Herlihy, P. J., Aulisi, Staley, Jr., Greenblott and Cooke, JJ., concur in memorandum by Aulisi, J.

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

Aulisi, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County' Court of Chemung County, rendered November 21, 1968, convicting defendant on his plea of guilty of burglary in the third degree. Appellant contends that the record does not support a finding that his confession was voluntary; that the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona (384 U. S. 436) were not properly given; that the determination of voluntariness by the Judge after the hearing pursuant to People v. Huntley (15 N Y 2d 72) Was insufficient; and that the sentence received was excessive. We find nothing in the record before us to merit sustaining these contentions. There is ample evidence, including defendant’s signed statements, to support the finding beyond a reasonable doubt that he was fully apprised of his rights. Judgment affirmed. Herlihy, P. J., Aulisi, Staley, Jr., Greenblott and Cooke, JJ., concur in memorandum by Aulisi, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 A.D.2d 585, 304 N.Y.S.2d 333, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3111, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-maggese-nyappdiv-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack