From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. White

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 16, 2000
276 A.D.2d 652 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

Argued September 19, 2000.

October 16, 2000.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Tomei, J.), rendered July 11, 1996, convicting him of murder in the second degree and robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Juviler, J.), of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress statements made by him to law enforcement officials.

M. Sue Wycoff, New York, N.Y. (Michelle Fox and Daniel L. Greenberg of counsel), for appellant.

Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Thomas M. Ross of counsel), for respondent.

Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., HOWARD MILLER, SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, NANCY E. SMITH, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

There was no evidence that the police used deception and trickery to isolate the defendant, who was then 19 years old, from his family (see, People v. Salaam, 83 N.Y.2d 51, 56-58). Accordingly, the court properly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress his statements.

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).

The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.


Summaries of

People v. White

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 16, 2000
276 A.D.2d 652 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

People v. White

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, ETC., RESPONDENT, v. KENDALL WHITE, APPELLANT. (IND. NO…

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

Date published: Oct 16, 2000

Citations

276 A.D.2d 652 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
714 N.Y.S.2d 896

Citing Cases

People v. Chung

The defendant, 16 years old at all relevant times, argues that his inculpatory statements must be suppressed…