From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Modesto

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 26, 1984
104 A.D.2d 1054 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)

Opinion

October 26, 1984

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Owens, J.).


Judgment affirmed.

On the record presented, we find that the defendant made inculpatory statements after the proper administration of Miranda warnings. Therefore, the hearing court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress the statements.

Defendant did not move to withdraw his plea at the allocation or at sentencing. Having failed to raise any objections to the adequacy of the plea allocation in the court of first instance, defendant has not preserved the issue for appellate review as a matter of law (see People v Pellegrino, 60 N.Y.2d 636; People v Fernandez, 91 A.D.2d 1073). In any event, we find that the allocation was proper ( People v Nixon, 21 N.Y.2d 338, cert. den. sub nom. Robinson v New York, 393 U.S. 1067).

We have reviewed defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Titone, J.P., Lazer, Bracken and Boyers, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Modesto

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 26, 1984
104 A.D.2d 1054 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)
Case details for

People v. Modesto

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JUAN MODESTO, Appellant

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

Date published: Oct 26, 1984

Citations

104 A.D.2d 1054 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)

Citing Cases

People v. Traynor

In view thereof, the statutory compliance was sufficient (People v Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9). The record further…