People v. Quintero

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Quintero

72 A.D.3d 847, 898 N.Y.S.2d 489

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

DecidedApril 13, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 72 A.D.3d 847 (People v. Quintero) 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. Quintero, 72 A.D.3d 847, 898 N.Y.S.2d 489 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Dolan, J.), rendered September 9, 2008, convicting him of predatory sexual assault and rape in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress a statement the defendant made to law enforcement officials.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the record supports the hearing court’s conclusion that his statement regarding a [848]*848laptop computer was spontaneous and not the result of the functional equivalent of interrogation (see People v Stockdale, 270 AD2d 294, 294-295 [2000]; People v Betancourt, 173 AD2d 481, 482 [1991]; cf. People v Ferro, 63 NY2d 316, 322-323 [1984], cert denied 472 US 1007 [1985]). Fisher, J.P., Leventhal, Belen and Sgroi, 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 County Court, Dutchess County (Dolan, J.), rendered September 9, 2008, convicting him of predatory sexual assault and rape in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress a statement the defendant made to law enforcement officials.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the record supports the hearing court’s conclusion that his statement regarding a [848]*848laptop computer was spontaneous and not the result of the functional equivalent of interrogation (see People v Stockdale, 270 AD2d 294, 294-295 [2000]; People v Betancourt, 173 AD2d 481, 482 [1991]; cf. People v Ferro, 63 NY2d 316, 322-323 [1984], cert denied 472 US 1007 [1985]). Fisher, J.P., Leventhal, Belen and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 A.D.3d 847, 898 N.Y.S.2d 489, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-quintero-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack