People v. Ortlieb

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Ortlieb

646 N.E.2d 803, 84 N.Y.2d 989, 622 N.Y.S.2d 501, 1994 N.Y. LEXIS 4401

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 22, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by23 cases

This text of 646 N.E.2d 803 (People v. Ortlieb) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Ortlieb, 646 N.E.2d 803, 84 N.Y.2d 989, 622 N.Y.S.2d 501, 1994 N.Y. LEXIS 4401 (N.Y. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

On March 29, 1992, at approximately 7:00 a.m., defendant was arrested in connection with the stabbing death of his former girlfriend. Defendant was advised of his Miranda rights upon arrest and again at the station house. At 9:30, defendant agreed to talk to the officers without an attorney present and, at 12:15 p.m., signed a written statement confessing to the crime. Defendant was arraigned at 1:00 p.m. At the Huntley hearing, one of the interrogating officers testified that the reason defendant was not taken for arraignment at 9:30 *990 was that the police "wanted to talk to him.” County Court found that defendant competently and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights and accordingly denied suppression of the statement. Defendant pleaded guilty to second degree murder, and the Appellate Division affirmed.

Defendant contends that he was entitled to suppression on the ground that arraignment was postponed for the sole purpose of depriving him of the right to counsel, a contention not supported by the record. We therefore conclude that there was no "unnecessary delay” (CPL 140.20 [1]), and thus suppression was properly denied (see, People v Wilson, 56 NY2d 692, 694; see also, Preiser, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 11A, CPL 140.20, at 540).

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

On March 29, 1992, at approximately 7:00 a.m., defendant was arrested in connection with the stabbing death of his former girlfriend. Defendant was advised of his Miranda rights upon arrest and again at the station house. At 9:30, defendant agreed to talk to the officers without an attorney present and, at 12:15 p.m., signed a written statement confessing to the crime. Defendant was arraigned at 1:00 p.m. At the Huntley hearing, one of the interrogating officers testified that the reason defendant was not taken for arraignment at 9:30 *990 was that the police "wanted to talk to him.” County Court found that defendant competently and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights and accordingly denied suppression of the statement. Defendant pleaded guilty to second degree murder, and the Appellate Division affirmed.

Defendant contends that he was entitled to suppression on the ground that arraignment was postponed for the sole purpose of depriving him of the right to counsel, a contention not supported by the record. We therefore conclude that there was no "unnecessary delay” (CPL 140.20 [1]), and thus suppression was properly denied (see, People v Wilson, 56 NY2d 692, 694; see also, Preiser, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 11A, CPL 140.20, at 540).

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

646 N.E.2d 803, 84 N.Y.2d 989, 622 N.Y.S.2d 501, 1994 N.Y. LEXIS 4401, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ortlieb-ny-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack