People v. Wedekind

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Wedekind

200 A.D.2d 891, 607 N.Y.S.2d 173, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 619

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

DecidedJanuary 27, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 200 A.D.2d 891 (People v. Wedekind) 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. Wedekind, 200 A.D.2d 891, 607 N.Y.S.2d 173, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 619 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—White, J.

[892]*892Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Smith, J.), rendered August 14, 1991, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of arson in the third degree.

Defendant voluntarily accompanied the police from the scene of a fire to the police station where he was read his Miranda rights. He acknowledged that he understood his rights, signed a waiver and agreed to talk to the police without an attorney. He then made oral admissions and gave the police a signed confession. At the conclusion of a Huntley hearing, County Court found that defendant’s oral and written statements were freely and voluntarily made after he was advised of his Miranda rights, which he understood and waived. Subsequently, defendant entered a plea of guilty of the crime of arson in the third degree and, after his motion to withdraw his plea was denied, he was sentenced as a second felony offender to a term of imprisonment of 4V2 to 9 years. This appeal ensued. We affirm.

We shall not disturb County Court’s resolution, as the trier of fact, of the credibility issue created at the Huntley hearing by the conflicting testimony on defendant’s claim that he requested a lawyer during his interrogation, inasmuch as the court’s determination that defendant did not make such a request is supported by the record (see, People v Walker, 191 AD2d 603, lv denied 81 NY2d 1021). Defendant’s further argument that his 6th Amendment right to counsel was violated when the police continued to question him after learning he had a prior criminal charge pending against him is unavailing because the crime here was unrelated to the previously charged crime (see, People v Bing, 76 NY2d 331, 349-350). Defendant’s claim that he was illegally detained has not been preserved for our review as it was not raised at the Huntley hearing (see, People v Harrell, 59 NY2d 620, 621). Lastly, we find that County Court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea because defendant did not present any evidence or claim of innocence, fraud or mistake in inducing the plea (see, People v Batts, 179 AD2d 937; People v Cance, 155 AD2d 764, 764-765).

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Casey and Weiss, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

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

—White, J.

[892]*892Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Smith, J.), rendered August 14, 1991, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of arson in the third degree.

Defendant voluntarily accompanied the police from the scene of a fire to the police station where he was read his Miranda rights. He acknowledged that he understood his rights, signed a waiver and agreed to talk to the police without an attorney. He then made oral admissions and gave the police a signed confession. At the conclusion of a Huntley hearing, County Court found that defendant’s oral and written statements were freely and voluntarily made after he was advised of his Miranda rights, which he understood and waived. Subsequently, defendant entered a plea of guilty of the crime of arson in the third degree and, after his motion to withdraw his plea was denied, he was sentenced as a second felony offender to a term of imprisonment of 4V2 to 9 years. This appeal ensued. We affirm.

We shall not disturb County Court’s resolution, as the trier of fact, of the credibility issue created at the Huntley hearing by the conflicting testimony on defendant’s claim that he requested a lawyer during his interrogation, inasmuch as the court’s determination that defendant did not make such a request is supported by the record (see, People v Walker, 191 AD2d 603, lv denied 81 NY2d 1021). Defendant’s further argument that his 6th Amendment right to counsel was violated when the police continued to question him after learning he had a prior criminal charge pending against him is unavailing because the crime here was unrelated to the previously charged crime (see, People v Bing, 76 NY2d 331, 349-350). Defendant’s claim that he was illegally detained has not been preserved for our review as it was not raised at the Huntley hearing (see, People v Harrell, 59 NY2d 620, 621). Lastly, we find that County Court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea because defendant did not present any evidence or claim of innocence, fraud or mistake in inducing the plea (see, People v Batts, 179 AD2d 937; People v Cance, 155 AD2d 764, 764-765).

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Casey and Weiss, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

200 A.D.2d 891, 607 N.Y.S.2d 173, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 619, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-wedekind-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack