People v. Shi Lin Zheng

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Shi Lin Zheng

263 A.D.2d 462, 691 N.Y.S.2d 910, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7722

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

DecidedJuly 6, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 263 A.D.2d 462 (People v. Shi Lin Zheng) 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. Shi Lin Zheng, 263 A.D.2d 462, 691 N.Y.S.2d 910, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7722 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (McDonald, J.), rendered November 8, 1996, convicting him of kidnapping in the second degree, attempted robbery in the first degree (three counts), attempted grand larceny in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and unlawful imprisonment in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Clabby, J.), of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress statements made by him to law enforcement officials.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s inculpatory statements to a detective were made voluntarily after the defendant had been read the Miranda rights and had knowingly and intelligently waived them (see, People v Torres, 220 AD2d 785).

[463]*463The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Bracken, J. P., Goldstein, McGinity and Schmidt, 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, Queens County (McDonald, J.), rendered November 8, 1996, convicting him of kidnapping in the second degree, attempted robbery in the first degree (three counts), attempted grand larceny in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and unlawful imprisonment in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Clabby, J.), of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress statements made by him to law enforcement officials.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s inculpatory statements to a detective were made voluntarily after the defendant had been read the Miranda rights and had knowingly and intelligently waived them (see, People v Torres, 220 AD2d 785).

[463]*463The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Bracken, J. P., Goldstein, McGinity and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

263 A.D.2d 462, 691 N.Y.S.2d 910, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7722, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-shi-lin-zheng-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack