People v. Mantor

4 Citing cases

  1. People v. Mantor

    979 N.E.2d 820 (N.Y. 2012)

    Smith4th Dept.: 96 A.D.3d 1645, 946 N.Y.S.2d 807 (Oneida) Smith, J.Denied.

  2. People v. Townsend

    2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 3172 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)

    Defendant's contention that the statements that he made at the police station were obtained in violation of his right to counsel is also without merit. Defendant was not in custody in connection with an unrelated pending charge in the State of Florida, and thus he had no derivative right to counsel with respect to the murder charge at issue here (see People v Mantor, 96 AD3d 1645, 1646 [4th Dept 2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 1103 [2012]; see generally People v Lopez, 16 NY3d 375, 377 [2011]). Additionally, the record supports the court's determination that defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his Miranda rights (see People v Spoor, 148 AD3d 1795, 1796-1797 [4th Dept 2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 1134 [2017]).

  3. People v. Townsend

    171 A.D.3d 1479 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)   Cited 16 times

    We conclude that her question to defendant was not reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response (seePeople v. Roberts, 121 A.D.3d 1530, 1531, 993 N.Y.S.2d 825 [4th Dept. 2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 1122, 27 N.E.3d 478 [2015] ; People v. Youngblood, 294 A.D.2d 954, 954, 742 N.Y.S.2d 762 [4th Dept. 2002], lv denied 98 N.Y.2d 704, 747 N.Y.S.2d 423, 776 N.E.2d 12 [2002] ). Defendant's contention that the statements that he made at the police station were obtained in violation of his right to counsel is also without merit. Defendant was not in custody in connection with an unrelated pending charge in the State of Florida, and thus he had no derivative right to counsel with respect to the murder charge at issue here (seePeople v. Mantor, 96 A.D.3d 1645, 1646, 946 N.Y.S.2d 807 [4th Dept. 2012], lv denied 19 N.Y.3d 1103, 955 N.Y.S.2d 559, 979 N.E.2d 820 [2012] ; see generallyPeople v. Lopez, 16 NY3d 375, 377, 923 N.Y.S.2d 377, 947 N.E.2d 1155 [2011] ). Additionally, the record supports the court's determination that defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his Miranda rights (seePeople v. Spoor, 148 A.D.3d 1795, 1796–1797, 50 N.Y.S.3d 232 [4th Dept. 2017], lv denied 29 N.Y.3d 1134, 64 N.Y.S.3d 684, 86 N.E.3d 576 [2017] ). Defendant next contends that he was denied a fair trial by prosecutorial misconduct during voir dire and on summation.

  4. People v. Votra

    104 A.D.3d 1160 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)   Cited 2 times

    Defendant further contends that his indelible right to counsel was violated because he was represented on unrelated charges at the time he was questioned by the police with respect to the present offense. We reject that contention. “[D]efendant was not in custody on the unrelated charge[s] for which he had previously invoked his right to counsel, and thus he did not have a derivative right to counsel with respect to the [robbery] charge” ( People v. Mantor, 96 A.D.3d 1645, 1646, 946 N.Y.S.2d 807,lv. denied19 N.Y.3d 1103, 955 N.Y.S.2d 559, 979 N.E.2d 820;see People v. Steward, 88 N.Y.2d 496, 500–502, 646 N.Y.S.2d 974, 670 N.E.2d 214,rearg. denied88 N.Y.2d 1018, 649 N.Y.S.2d 384, 672 N.E.2d 610). Defendant's contention that the court abused its discretion in denying his request for an adjournment of the trial in order to obtain a transcript of his codefendant's trial is without merit, particularly given that the transcript might never be available due to the serious illness of the court reporter who transcribed the codefendant's trial. “ ‘The court's exercise of discretion in denying a request for an adjournment will not be overturned absent a showing of prejudice’ ” ( People v. Aikey, 94 A.D.3d 1485, 1486, 943 N.Y.S.2d 702,lv. denied19 N.Y.3d 956, 950 N.Y.S.2d 108, 973 N.E.2d 206;see People v. Arroyo, 161 A.D.2d 1127, 1127, 555 N.Y.S.2d 499,lv. denied76 N.Y.2d 852, 560 N.Y.S.2d 991, 561 N.E.2d 891), which was not established here.