From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Ingraham

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Apr 4, 1991
172 A.D.2d 870 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

April 4, 1991

Appeal from the County Court of Broome County (Monserrate, J.).


The record supports County Court's findings that defendant voluntarily made a statement after he was given his Miranda warnings, did not request to speak to an attorney and was not promised anything by the detectives. Any conflict in the testimony given at the suppression hearing merely presented a credibility question for County Court to resolve (see, People v Munhall, 92 A.D.2d 1060, 1061) and its determination will only be rejected on appeal if unsupported as a matter of law (see, People v. Jackson, 101 A.D.2d 955, 955-956). In addition, we see no reason to disturb defendant's prison sentence of 9 to 18 years. He entered into a plea agreement knowing that he would receive the sentence ultimately imposed by County Court and a pending charge of violation of probation was dismissed (see, People v Kazepis, 101 A.D.2d 816, 817).

Judgment affirmed. Casey, J.P., Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., Mercure and Crew III, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Ingraham

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Apr 4, 1991
172 A.D.2d 870 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

People v. Ingraham

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. GERALD INGRAHAM…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Apr 4, 1991

Citations

172 A.D.2d 870 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
568 N.Y.S.2d 172

Citing Cases

People v. McPherson

Memorandum: County Court's determination that the statement of defendant was voluntarily made after he…

People v. Mayo

Following a Huntley hearing, County Court concluded that the police did not intentionally edit the videotape…