People v. Patrick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Patrick

14 A.D.3d 406, 787 N.Y.S.2d 657, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 303

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

DecidedJanuary 18, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 14 A.D.3d 406 (People v. Patrick) 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. Patrick, 14 A.D.3d 406, 787 N.Y.S.2d 657, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 303 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Micki A. Scherer, J, on suppression motion; William Leibovitz, J, at jury trial and sentence), rendered May 15, 2001, convicting defendant of burglary in the first degree (two counts), robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree (two counts) and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. The record supports the determination, made by a judicial hearing officer and adopted by the motion court, that defendant’s confession was voluntary (see Arizona v Fulminante, 499 US 279, 285-288 [1991]; People v Anderson, 42 NY2d 35, 38-39 [1977]). Defendant’s assertions that he was subjected to excessively lengthy interrogation and deprived of food and rest are contradicted by the record.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). On the contrary, there was overwhelming ev[407]*407idence of guilt including defendant’s voluntary confession, reliable identification testimony and other evidence.

We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining claims. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Friedman, Sullivan, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Micki A. Scherer, J, on suppression motion; William Leibovitz, J, at jury trial and sentence), rendered May 15, 2001, convicting defendant of burglary in the first degree (two counts), robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree (two counts) and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. The record supports the determination, made by a judicial hearing officer and adopted by the motion court, that defendant’s confession was voluntary (see Arizona v Fulminante, 499 US 279, 285-288 [1991]; People v Anderson, 42 NY2d 35, 38-39 [1977]). Defendant’s assertions that he was subjected to excessively lengthy interrogation and deprived of food and rest are contradicted by the record.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). On the contrary, there was overwhelming ev[407]*407idence of guilt including defendant’s voluntary confession, reliable identification testimony and other evidence.

We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining claims. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Friedman, Sullivan, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 A.D.3d 406, 787 N.Y.S.2d 657, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 303, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-patrick-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack