People v. McPhee

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. McPhee

168 A.D.2d 984, 564 N.Y.S.2d 930, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16548

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

DecidedDecember 21, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 168 A.D.2d 984 (People v. McPhee) 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. McPhee, 168 A.D.2d 984, 564 N.Y.S.2d 930, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16548 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: From our review of the evidence, the law and the circumstances in this case, we conclude that defendant was provided with meaningful representation (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 146-147). We also conclude that the suppression court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress the fruits of his warrantless arrest, his in-court identification and his statements to the police. Further, defendant has failed to preserve for review his contention that his statements to the police should have been suppressed because the police, after giving him his Miranda warnings (see, Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436), failed to honor his right to remain silent (see, People v Mandrachio, 55 NY2d 906, 907, cert denied 457 US 1122; People v McNeil, 132 AD2d 986, lv denied 70 NY2d 801). Additionally, even if the suppression court erred in failing to suppress defendant’s statements to the police, the error was harmless because the proof against defendant was overwhelming and there was no reasonable possibility that admission of these statements contributed to his conviction (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 237).

With regard to the remainder of appellate counsel’s and defendant’s pro se contentions, we find them either unpreserved or without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Marshall, J. — robbery, first degree.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Denman, Balio and Lawton, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: From our review of the evidence, the law and the circumstances in this case, we conclude that defendant was provided with meaningful representation (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 146-147). We also conclude that the suppression court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress the fruits of his warrantless arrest, his in-court identification and his statements to the police. Further, defendant has failed to preserve for review his contention that his statements to the police should have been suppressed because the police, after giving him his Miranda warnings (see, Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436), failed to honor his right to remain silent (see, People v Mandrachio, 55 NY2d 906, 907, cert denied 457 US 1122; People v McNeil, 132 AD2d 986, lv denied 70 NY2d 801). Additionally, even if the suppression court erred in failing to suppress defendant’s statements to the police, the error was harmless because the proof against defendant was overwhelming and there was no reasonable possibility that admission of these statements contributed to his conviction (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 237).

With regard to the remainder of appellate counsel’s and defendant’s pro se contentions, we find them either unpreserved or without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Marshall, J. — robbery, first degree.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Denman, Balio and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 A.D.2d 984, 564 N.Y.S.2d 930, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16548, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mcphee-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack