People v. Sears

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Sears

9 A.D.3d 472, 780 N.Y.S.2d 178, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10006

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

DecidedJuly 26, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 9 A.D.3d 472 (People v. Sears) 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. Sears, 9 A.D.3d 472, 780 N.Y.S.2d 178, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10006 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Rooney, J.), rendered August 16, 2001, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial (Rienzi, J.), after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress his statements to law enforcement authorities.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant made certain statements to a particular detective who, in effect, delayed his arraignment in order to be able to question him before his right to counsel attached (cf. People v Samuels, 49 NY2d 218 [1980]). The defendant contends that this rendered his statements involuntary. However, his contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, his contention is without merit, as the totality of the circumstances shows that his statements were voluntarily made (see People v Ramos, 99 NY2d 27 [2002]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions, raised in his supple[473]*473mental pro se brief, either are unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]), or without merit. Santucci, J.E, Schmidt, Townes and Rivera, 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 Supreme Court, Richmond County (Rooney, J.), rendered August 16, 2001, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial (Rienzi, J.), after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress his statements to law enforcement authorities.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant made certain statements to a particular detective who, in effect, delayed his arraignment in order to be able to question him before his right to counsel attached (cf. People v Samuels, 49 NY2d 218 [1980]). The defendant contends that this rendered his statements involuntary. However, his contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, his contention is without merit, as the totality of the circumstances shows that his statements were voluntarily made (see People v Ramos, 99 NY2d 27 [2002]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions, raised in his supple[473]*473mental pro se brief, either are unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]), or without merit. Santucci, J.E, Schmidt, Townes and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 A.D.3d 472, 780 N.Y.S.2d 178, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10006, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-sears-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack