People v. Wright

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Wright

171 A.D.2d 905, 566 N.Y.S.2d 779, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2741

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

DecidedMarch 7, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 171 A.D.2d 905 (People v. Wright) 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. Wright, 171 A.D.2d 905, 566 N.Y.S.2d 779, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2741 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Mathews, J.), rendered March 30, 1990, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of two counts of the crime of assault in the second degree.

Defendant’s only contention on appeal is that County Court [906]*906improperly denied his motion to suppress his confession and certain physical evidence because he did not make a knowing, intelligent and voluntary waiver of his Miranda rights. The investigator who interviewed defendant testified that, upon reading defendant the Miranda warnings, defendant specifically stated that he understood each one and then, after being handed the waiver form to read, defendant proceeded to sign it at the bottom. Defendant then willingly answered questions and made a statement. Under such circumstances, and given the fact that the record indicates that defendant appeared to be in full control of his faculties, we find that defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights (see, People v Sirno, 76 NY2d 967, 968; People v Groves, 157 AD2d 970, 970-971, Iv denied 75 NY2d 919; People v Shields, 125 AD2d 863, 864, Iv denied 69 NY2d 955).

Judgment affirmed. Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Levine, Mercure and Harvey, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Mathews, J.), rendered March 30, 1990, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of two counts of the crime of assault in the second degree.

Defendant’s only contention on appeal is that County Court [906]*906improperly denied his motion to suppress his confession and certain physical evidence because he did not make a knowing, intelligent and voluntary waiver of his Miranda rights. The investigator who interviewed defendant testified that, upon reading defendant the Miranda warnings, defendant specifically stated that he understood each one and then, after being handed the waiver form to read, defendant proceeded to sign it at the bottom. Defendant then willingly answered questions and made a statement. Under such circumstances, and given the fact that the record indicates that defendant appeared to be in full control of his faculties, we find that defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights (see, People v Sirno, 76 NY2d 967, 968; People v Groves, 157 AD2d 970, 970-971, Iv denied 75 NY2d 919; People v Shields, 125 AD2d 863, 864, Iv denied 69 NY2d 955).

Judgment affirmed. Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Levine, Mercure and Harvey, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

171 A.D.2d 905, 566 N.Y.S.2d 779, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2741, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-wright-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack