People v. Tirado

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Tirado

137 A.D.2d 928, 525 N.Y.S.2d 352, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2034

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

DecidedFebruary 25, 1988

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 137 A.D.2d 928 (People v. Tirado) 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. Tirado, 137 A.D.2d 928, 525 N.Y.S.2d 352, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2034 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

Casey, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County (Harris, J.), rendered September 10, 1984, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree.

On his prior appeal to this court (117 AD2d 874), defendant’s judgment of conviction was affirmed. The Court of Appeals modified the judgment rendered by this court and ordered the case remitted to County Court for a determination of certain factual findings concerning the handcuffing of defendant (69 NY2d 863). The Court of Appeals stated: "In the event the suppression court finds that defendant was handcuffed before, or at the same time as, he made his initial statement, then in the circumstances presented [defendant’s] suppression motion should be granted, defendant’s plea va[929]*929cated, and the indictment dismissed. In the event the suppression court finds that defendant made his initial statement before handcuffing, the judgment should be amended to reflect that determination” (supra, at 865).

At the remand hearing, the arresting officer could not recall whether the handcuffs were placed on defendant before or after his incriminating statements; defendant did not take the stand to testify in regard thereto. County Court decided that the colloquy between defendant and the police officer, together with the pat down that the police officer conducted, demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that the incriminating statements by defendant preceded his handcuffing, so that there was no necessity for the administration of Miranda warnings prior to the detective’s question that precipitated defendant’s incriminating statements. We agree with the determination of County Court and, therefore, pursuant to the Court of Appeals directive, the judgment of conviction must be amended.

Judgment amended to reflect that defendant made his initial statement before being handcuffed, and, as so amended, affirmed. Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, JJ., concur.

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

Casey, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County (Harris, J.), rendered September 10, 1984, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree.

On his prior appeal to this court (117 AD2d 874), defendant’s judgment of conviction was affirmed. The Court of Appeals modified the judgment rendered by this court and ordered the case remitted to County Court for a determination of certain factual findings concerning the handcuffing of defendant (69 NY2d 863). The Court of Appeals stated: "In the event the suppression court finds that defendant was handcuffed before, or at the same time as, he made his initial statement, then in the circumstances presented [defendant’s] suppression motion should be granted, defendant’s plea va[929]*929cated, and the indictment dismissed. In the event the suppression court finds that defendant made his initial statement before handcuffing, the judgment should be amended to reflect that determination” (supra, at 865).

At the remand hearing, the arresting officer could not recall whether the handcuffs were placed on defendant before or after his incriminating statements; defendant did not take the stand to testify in regard thereto. County Court decided that the colloquy between defendant and the police officer, together with the pat down that the police officer conducted, demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that the incriminating statements by defendant preceded his handcuffing, so that there was no necessity for the administration of Miranda warnings prior to the detective’s question that precipitated defendant’s incriminating statements. We agree with the determination of County Court and, therefore, pursuant to the Court of Appeals directive, the judgment of conviction must be amended.

Judgment amended to reflect that defendant made his initial statement before being handcuffed, and, as so amended, affirmed. Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

137 A.D.2d 928, 525 N.Y.S.2d 352, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2034, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-tirado-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack