From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Sanchez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 4, 1985
109 A.D.2d 761 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Opinion

March 4, 1985

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Moskowitz, J.).


Judgment affirmed.

The hearing court did not err in determining that suppression of the self-incriminatory statements which defendant made to law enforcement authorities was not warranted ( see, People v Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759; People v. Armstead, 98 A.D.2d 726). Rather, under the totality of the circumstances ( People v Anderson, 42 N.Y.2d 35; People v. Woods, 89 A.D.2d 1022), we conclude that defendant made the statements voluntarily after he knowingly and intelligently waived his constitutional rights to counsel and to remain silent. Defendant's mental condition did not prevent him from comprehending his Miranda rights, knowingly and intelligently waiving them, and making voluntary and reliable statements ( see, People v. Schompert, 19 N.Y.2d 300, cert denied 389 U.S. 874; People v. Love, 57 N.Y.2d 998; People v Williams, 62 N.Y.2d 285; People v. Woods, supra; People v. Kelly, 67 A.D.2d 1009; see also, People v. Crosby, 91 A.D.2d 20, lv denied 59 N.Y.2d 765). Moreover, since the authorities were completely unaware of defendant's prior pending charge, on which an attorney had been assigned to represent him, they were not foreclosed from interrogating him on the instant matter ( see, People v. Bartolomeo, 53 N.Y.2d 225; People v. Servidio, 54 N.Y.2d 951; People v. Smith, 54 N.Y.2d 954). Additionally, based on the record before us, it cannot be said that the authorities had any reason to inquire whether any charges were pending or that they avoided knowledge of legal representation through subterfuge or by deliberately overlooking the obvious, even though the prior, unrelated charge was pending in the same police department where the interrogation occurred and was less than two months old ( see, People v. Fuschino, 59 N.Y.2d 91; People v. Servidio, supra; People v. Beverly, 104 A.D.2d 996; see also, People v. Cunningham, 60 N.Y.2d 930).

We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved or lacking in merit. Lazer, J.P., Mangano, Bracken and Niehoff, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Sanchez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 4, 1985
109 A.D.2d 761 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)
Case details for

People v. Sanchez

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ROBERT SANCHEZ…

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

Date published: Mar 4, 1985

Citations

109 A.D.2d 761 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Citing Cases

People v. Woolard

At the suppression hearing, the defendant contended that this statement should be suppressed because it was…

People v. Thomas

Although the defendant had been arrested in the same county approximately 10 days earlier, the present record…