People v. Velasquez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Velasquez

246 A.D.2d 448, 668 N.Y.S.2d 374, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 361

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

DecidedJanuary 22, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 246 A.D.2d 448 (People v. Velasquez) 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. Velasquez, 246 A.D.2d 448, 668 N.Y.S.2d 374, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 361 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ronald Zweibel, J.), rendered April 12, 1995, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s suppression motions were properly denied. Following defendant’s arrest, police inquiries regarding ownership of the van in question and the whereabouts of its keys were clearly intended to clarify the situation and did not constitute police interrogation requiring Miranda warnings (People v Huffman, 41 NY2d 29, 33; People v Bailey, 172 AD2d 163, lv denied 78 NY2d 920). The inventory search of the van following defendant’s lawful arrest was conducted pursuant to routine police procedure and did not require a warrant (see, People v Galak, 80 NY2d 715; People v Gonzalez, 62 NY2d 386, 388-389).

[449]*449On the existing record, we find that trial counsel’s representation was meaningful (People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137).

We perceive no abuse of discretion in sentencing. Defendant’s suggestion that the court possessed discretion to sentence defendant as a first felony offender is contrary to law.

Defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved and without merit. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ronald Zweibel, J.), rendered April 12, 1995, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s suppression motions were properly denied. Following defendant’s arrest, police inquiries regarding ownership of the van in question and the whereabouts of its keys were clearly intended to clarify the situation and did not constitute police interrogation requiring Miranda warnings (People v Huffman, 41 NY2d 29, 33; People v Bailey, 172 AD2d 163, lv denied 78 NY2d 920). The inventory search of the van following defendant’s lawful arrest was conducted pursuant to routine police procedure and did not require a warrant (see, People v Galak, 80 NY2d 715; People v Gonzalez, 62 NY2d 386, 388-389).

[449]*449On the existing record, we find that trial counsel’s representation was meaningful (People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137).

We perceive no abuse of discretion in sentencing. Defendant’s suggestion that the court possessed discretion to sentence defendant as a first felony offender is contrary to law.

Defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved and without merit. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

246 A.D.2d 448, 668 N.Y.S.2d 374, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 361, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-velasquez-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack