People v. Minetos

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Minetos

97 A.D.2d 801, 468 N.Y.S.2d 589, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20566

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

DecidedNovember 14, 1983

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 97 A.D.2d 801 (People v. Minetos) 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. Minetos, 97 A.D.2d 801, 468 N.Y.S.2d 589, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20566 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Marasco, J.), rendered October 14, 1981, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, criminal use of a firearm in the first degree, grand larceny in the third degree, unlawful imprisonment in the second degree and criminal mischief in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. A number of the claimed errors advanced by defendant’s counsel have not been preserved for appellate review and those which have been preserved are either without merit or do not justify reversal. We have also considered defendant’s claim, made pro se, that statements were elicited from him after he requested counsel (see Edwards v Arizona, 451 US 477) and find that the claim is not supported by the record. Mollen, P. J., Titone, Lazer and Rubin, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Marasco, J.), rendered October 14, 1981, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, criminal use of a firearm in the first degree, grand larceny in the third degree, unlawful imprisonment in the second degree and criminal mischief in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. A number of the claimed errors advanced by defendant’s counsel have not been preserved for appellate review and those which have been preserved are either without merit or do not justify reversal. We have also considered defendant’s claim, made pro se, that statements were elicited from him after he requested counsel (see Edwards v Arizona, 451 US 477) and find that the claim is not supported by the record. Mollen, P. J., Titone, Lazer and Rubin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

97 A.D.2d 801, 468 N.Y.S.2d 589, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20566, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-minetos-nyappdiv-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack