People v. Miller

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Miller

268 A.D.2d 600, 702 N.Y.S.2d 851, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 897

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

DecidedJanuary 31, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 268 A.D.2d 600 (People v. Miller) 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. Miller, 268 A.D.2d 600, 702 N.Y.S.2d 851, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 897 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Starkey, J.), rendered September 15, 1997, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Juvilar, J.), of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to supress statements he made to law enforcement officials.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

There is no merit to the defendant’s contention that the statements he made to law enforcement officials were involuntary. It is undisputed that the defendant was not threatened, [601]*601abused, or otherwise mistreated by the police (see, People v Croney, 121 AD2d 558, 559). There is no evidence that the defendant requested an attorney at any time, that he was deprived of food or drink, or that he was subjected to persistent and overbearing interrogation or deception so fundamentally unfair as to deny due process (see, People v Padilla, 133 AD2d 353, 354). Additionally, the hearing court found that the defendant had twice been advised of his Miranda rights and voluntarily waived them prior to making both his oral and videotaped statements (see, People v Padilla, supra; People v Croney, supra).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Thompson and S. Miller, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Starkey, J.), rendered September 15, 1997, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Juvilar, J.), of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to supress statements he made to law enforcement officials.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

There is no merit to the defendant’s contention that the statements he made to law enforcement officials were involuntary. It is undisputed that the defendant was not threatened, [601]*601abused, or otherwise mistreated by the police (see, People v Croney, 121 AD2d 558, 559). There is no evidence that the defendant requested an attorney at any time, that he was deprived of food or drink, or that he was subjected to persistent and overbearing interrogation or deception so fundamentally unfair as to deny due process (see, People v Padilla, 133 AD2d 353, 354). Additionally, the hearing court found that the defendant had twice been advised of his Miranda rights and voluntarily waived them prior to making both his oral and videotaped statements (see, People v Padilla, supra; People v Croney, supra).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Thompson and S. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

268 A.D.2d 600, 702 N.Y.S.2d 851, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 897, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-miller-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack