People v. Robles

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Robles

250 A.D.2d 395, 672 N.Y.S.2d 693, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5327

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

DecidedMay 7, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 250 A.D.2d 395 (People v. Robles) 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. Robles, 250 A.D.2d 395, 672 N.Y.S.2d 693, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5327 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lawrence Tonetti, J.), rendered October 13, 1995, convicting defendant, upon his pleas of guilty, of robbery in the second degree and burglary in the second degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of IV2 to 4V2 years, unanimously affirmed.

The hearing court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress his videotaped statement. Although defendant’s first statement was suppressed because it was made at the time of his arrest without prior administration of Miranda warnings, defendant made his post -Miranda videotaped statement to an Assistant District Attorney at Central Booking after a definite pronounced break in the interrogation during which he slept at the precinct (see, People v Nova, 198 AD2d 193, lv denied 83 NY2d 808). During the 21 hours between statements, there was no interrogation or other continuity between statements, and there is no evidence that the suppressed statement was coerced. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Williams and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lawrence Tonetti, J.), rendered October 13, 1995, convicting defendant, upon his pleas of guilty, of robbery in the second degree and burglary in the second degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of IV2 to 4V2 years, unanimously affirmed.

The hearing court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress his videotaped statement. Although defendant’s first statement was suppressed because it was made at the time of his arrest without prior administration of Miranda warnings, defendant made his post -Miranda videotaped statement to an Assistant District Attorney at Central Booking after a definite pronounced break in the interrogation during which he slept at the precinct (see, People v Nova, 198 AD2d 193, lv denied 83 NY2d 808). During the 21 hours between statements, there was no interrogation or other continuity between statements, and there is no evidence that the suppressed statement was coerced. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Williams and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 A.D.2d 395, 672 N.Y.S.2d 693, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5327, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-robles-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack