From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Cote

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 20, 1990
164 A.D.2d 919 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

August 20, 1990

Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Goodman, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that statements he made were the product of an unlawful police detention is without merit. The defendant, whose van was parked in a shopping plaza containing a drugstore, aroused police suspicion when two police officers observed, from a distance of "two parking spaces" away, that he resembled police composite drawings of a suspect in numerous area drugstore robberies. A check of the van's license plates revealed that they had been issued to a red Pontiac, which the police subsequently discovered to also be the property of the defendant. These factors gave the police officers reasonable suspicion supporting their request that the defendant drive his vehicle over to the side of the road and supporting their reasonable inquiry (see, People v Ingle, 36 N.Y.2d 413; see also, People v Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759).

We find that in light of the totality of the surrounding circumstances, the inculpatory statements made by the defendant after about an hour of police questioning were voluntary (see, People v Anderson, 42 N.Y.2d 35; People v Woods, 141 A.D.2d 588). Moreover, the defendant's previous request for counsel made in connection with unrelated charges pending in the State of North Carolina, did not preclude him from voluntarily waiving his right to counsel with respect to the new charges (see, People v Bing, 146 A.D.2d 178, affd 76 N.Y.2d 331). Accordingly, the Nassau County police officers were entitled to question the defendant after he voluntarily waived his right to counsel following the administration of the Miranda warnings (see, People v Bing, supra).

Finally, since the defendant pleaded guilty with the understanding that he would receive the sentence which was thereafter actually imposed, he cannot assert the sentence was excessive (see, People v Kazepis, 101 A.D.2d 816).

We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Sullivan, J.P., Harwood, Balletta and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Cote

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 20, 1990
164 A.D.2d 919 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

People v. Cote

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. STEVEN COTE, Appellant

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

Date published: Aug 20, 1990

Citations

164 A.D.2d 919 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
559 N.Y.S.2d 582

Citing Cases

People v. Abushatara

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed. We find that in light of the surrounding circumstances, the…