From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Fiorello

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 31, 1988
140 A.D.2d 708 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Opinion

May 31, 1988

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


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, and the case is remitted to the County Court, Nassau County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).

The defendant's inculpatory statement to the police officers who approached him after having observed the erratic course of his vehicle was properly admissible at trial. The defendant's statement, "I'm too drunk to drive. Let me walk home. I'll walk home", was made pursuant to a routine inquiry following an alleged traffic infraction at a point when the defendant was not in custody. Therefore, Miranda warnings were not required (see, Berkemer v McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 440; People v Bennett, 70 N.Y.2d 891, 894; People v Morales, 65 N.Y.2d 997, 998).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that the evidence was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15).

The prosecutor's remarks during summation to which the defendant now objects constituted fair responses to the summation remarks made by the defense counsel which impugned the officers' credibility (see, People v Anthony, 24 N.Y.2d 696, rearg denied sub nom. People v Batten, 25 N.Y.2d 647; People v Seldon, 128 A.D.2d 742, appeal denied 70 N.Y.2d 656; People v Jones, 125 A.D.2d 494, 495, appeal denied 69 N.Y.2d 829). The record does not support a conclusion that the prosecutor's remarks substantially prejudiced the defendant's trial (see, People v Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396; People v Reichbach, 131 A.D.2d 515, 516-517).

In view of the defendant's extensive criminal record, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).

We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J.P., Brown, Weinstein and Rubin, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Fiorello

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 31, 1988
140 A.D.2d 708 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)
Case details for

People v. Fiorello

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ANTHONY FIORELLO…

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

Date published: May 31, 1988

Citations

140 A.D.2d 708 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Citing Cases

People v. Quezada

fendant's conduct gave the officer probable cause to arrest him for reckless endangerment in the second…

People v. Myers

The defendant's contention that the results of the field sobriety tests should have been suppressed because…