From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Nieves

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 11, 1984
102 A.D.2d 858 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)

Opinion

June 11, 1984


Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kooper, J.), rendered March 22, 1978, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of so much of defendant's motion as was to suppress certain statements. ¶ Judgment affirmed. ¶ In defendant's omnibus motion papers, he did not raise the issue of his warrantless arrest as a ground to suppress his station house statements. At the suppression hearing the court was asked to rule upon the factual question of whether defendant had made statements as the result of police misconduct. At no time did counsel argue that defendant's statements should have been suppressed as a result of an arrest effected in his home without a warrant. By not pursuing this particular issue, defendant has failed to preserve it for appellate review ( People v. Smith, 55 N.Y.2d 888, 890; People v Gonzalez, 55 N.Y.2d 887, 888; People v. Martin, 50 N.Y.2d 1029, 1031; People v. Jennings, 94 A.D.2d 802). Moreover, under the circumstances herein presented, we decline to invoke our interest of justice jurisdiction to reach the issue. Lazer, J.P., Brown, Boyers and Eiber, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Nieves

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 11, 1984
102 A.D.2d 858 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)
Case details for

People v. Nieves

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. PEDRO NIEVES, Appellant

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

Date published: Jun 11, 1984

Citations

102 A.D.2d 858 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)

Citing Cases

People v. Roache

Judgment affirmed. At no time did the defendant raise before the suppression court the issue that the…

People v. Murriel

Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed. At no time did the defendant argue before the suppression…