People v. McPherson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. McPherson

213 A.D.2d 1074, 625 N.Y.S.2d 986

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

DecidedMarch 17, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 213 A.D.2d 1074 (People v. McPherson) 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. McPherson, 213 A.D.2d 1074, 625 N.Y.S.2d 986 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: County Court’s determination that the statement of defendant was voluntarily made after he knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights is supported by the record. The conflicting testimony of defendant that no Miranda warnings were given and that his statement was induced by his belief that he "could get off with another deal” presented issues of credibility to be resolved by the hearing court. It is well settled that the hearing court’s determination of credibility issues will not be disturbed on appeal unless unsupported as a matter of law (see, People v Ingraham, 172 AD2d 870; see also, People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761).

Lastly, the sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Wayne County Court, Strobridge, J. —Robbery, 1st Degree.) Present—Denman, P. J., Lawton, Wesley, Balio and Davis, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: County Court’s determination that the statement of defendant was voluntarily made after he knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights is supported by the record. The conflicting testimony of defendant that no Miranda warnings were given and that his statement was induced by his belief that he "could get off with another deal” presented issues of credibility to be resolved by the hearing court. It is well settled that the hearing court’s determination of credibility issues will not be disturbed on appeal unless unsupported as a matter of law (see, People v Ingraham, 172 AD2d 870; see also, People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761).

Lastly, the sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Wayne County Court, Strobridge, J. —Robbery, 1st Degree.) Present—Denman, P. J., Lawton, Wesley, Balio and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

213 A.D.2d 1074, 625 N.Y.S.2d 986, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mcpherson-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack