People v. Soutemenides

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Soutemenides

2017 NY Slip Op 5020, 151 A.D.3d 1876, 54 N.Y.S.3d 356

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

DecidedJune 16, 2017

Docket883 KA 14-02280

StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 5020 (People v. Soutemenides) 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. Soutemenides, 2017 NY Slip Op 5020, 151 A.D.3d 1876, 54 N.Y.S.3d 356 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

*1877 Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (James J. Piampiano, J.), rendered October 23, 2014. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of burglary in the third degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his guilty plea of burglary in the third degree (Penal Law § 140.20), defendant contends that County Court erred in refusing to suppress statements he made to the police investigator on the ground that they were involuntary. We reject that contention. The investigator testified at the suppression hearing that defendant did not appear to be intoxicated or high on drugs at the time of the interview, and that defendant was coherent, acknowledged that he understood his rights, and was willing to answer questions. When the investigator asked defendant if he was “high,” he responded in the negative. We conclude that there was no evidence at the hearing that defendant was “intoxicated to such a degree that he was incapable of voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waiving his Miranda rights” (People v Downey, 254 AD2d 794, 795 [1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 1031 [1998]), or that his statements were not otherwise voluntarily made (see People v Pruitt, 6 AD3d 1233, 1233 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 646 [2004]).

Present — Whalen, P.J., Peradotto, DeJoseph, Curran and Winslow, JJ.

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

*1877 Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (James J. Piampiano, J.), rendered October 23, 2014. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of burglary in the third degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his guilty plea of burglary in the third degree (Penal Law § 140.20), defendant contends that County Court erred in refusing to suppress statements he made to the police investigator on the ground that they were involuntary. We reject that contention. The investigator testified at the suppression hearing that defendant did not appear to be intoxicated or high on drugs at the time of the interview, and that defendant was coherent, acknowledged that he understood his rights, and was willing to answer questions. When the investigator asked defendant if he was “high,” he responded in the negative. We conclude that there was no evidence at the hearing that defendant was “intoxicated to such a degree that he was incapable of voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waiving his Miranda rights” (People v Downey, 254 AD2d 794, 795 [1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 1031 [1998]), or that his statements were not otherwise voluntarily made (see People v Pruitt, 6 AD3d 1233, 1233 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 646 [2004]).

Present — Whalen, P.J., Peradotto, DeJoseph, Curran and Winslow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 5020, 151 A.D.3d 1876, 54 N.Y.S.3d 356, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-soutemenides-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack