People v. Solano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Solano

171 A.D.2d 711

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

DecidedMarch 4, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 171 A.D.2d 711 (People v. Solano) 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. Solano, 171 A.D.2d 711 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Sherman, J.), rendered March 7, 1988, convicting him of attempted robbery in the second 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 statements made by him to the police.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the record shows that he understood the Miranda warnings, which were read to him in English, and that he effectively waived them. Accordingly, the hearing court properly denied that branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress statements made by him to the police. Mangano, P. J., Brown, Sullivan, Harwood and Miller, 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 (Sherman, J.), rendered March 7, 1988, convicting him of attempted robbery in the second 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 statements made by him to the police.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the record shows that he understood the Miranda warnings, which were read to him in English, and that he effectively waived them. Accordingly, the hearing court properly denied that branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress statements made by him to the police. Mangano, P. J., Brown, Sullivan, Harwood and Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

171 A.D.2d 711, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-solano-nyappdiv-1991.