From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Pulliam

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 4, 2002
292 A.D.2d 399 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

March 4, 2002.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gary, J.), rendered September 5, 2000, convicting him of manslaughter in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Knipel, J.), of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress statements he made to law enforcement officials.

Before: Ritter, J.P., Smith, Krausman and Townes, JJ., concur.


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court correctly concluded that the right to counsel had not indelibly attached at the time the defendant made the inculpatory statements and videotape in question (see, People v. Lennon, 243 A.D.2d 495). The defendant made the inculpatory statements only after he had declined to accept the attorney allegedly provided by his mother and after he knowingly, intellegently, and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights (see, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436; People v. Martino, 259 A.D.2d 561; People v. Lennon, supra; see also, People v. Baptiste, 276 A.D.2d 494).


Summaries of

People v. Pulliam

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 4, 2002
292 A.D.2d 399 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

People v. Pulliam

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ABDUL PULLIAM…

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

Date published: Mar 4, 2002

Citations

292 A.D.2d 399 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
738 N.Y.S.2d 593

Citing Cases

Pulliam v. West

Thus, I hold that the Appellate Division's determination that "the right to counsel had not indelibly…

People v. Grice

The hearing court properly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress two…