People v. Rodriguez
Decision Date | 23 September 1991 |
Citation | 176 A.D.2d 299,574 N.Y.S.2d 399 |
Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Robert RODRIGUEZ, Appellant. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
David Epstein, New York City, for appellant.
Robert Rodriguez, pro se.
Charles J. Hynes, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Jay M. Cohen, Michael Gore and Jane W. Sutley, of counsel), for respondent.
Before KOOPER, J.P., and HARWOOD, ROSENBLATT and RITTER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Pincus, J.), rendered December 22, 1983, convicting him of murder in the second degree (four counts) and attempted robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of those branches of the defendant's omnibus motion which were to suppress his statements to law enforcement authorities and for a separate trial.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that statements he made to law enforcement authorities should have been suppressed because they were allegedly the product, inter alia, of coercion. We disagree. The hearing court properly credited the testimony offered by the People's witnesses and rejected the defendant's assertions that his statements were obtained by unlawful means. It is well settled that the determination of a hearing court, which saw and heard the witnesses, should be accorded great weight on appeal (see, People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761, 395 N.Y.S.2d 635, 363 N.E.2d 1380; People v. Almodovar, 168 A.D.2d 454, 562 N.Y.S.2d 236). Here, the court properly weighed the conflicting evidence presented and concluded that the defendant's inculpatory statements were voluntarily made after he had knowingly waived his Miranda rights (see, e.g., People v. Pacheco, 168 A.D.2d 465, 562 N.Y.S.2d 585; People v. Almodovar, supra; People v. DeVito, 166 A.D.2d 606, 560 N.Y.S.2d 892; People v. Glasper, 160 A.D.2d 723, 553 N.Y.S.2d 472).
Further, although the court erred in admitting the inculpatory confessions of the defendant's nontestifying codefendant, we find that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The case at bar is distinguishable from that of the codefendant Kareem Abdul Latif, whose conviction we reversed on Confrontation Clause grounds (see, People v. Latif, 135 A.D.2d 736, 522 N.Y.S.2d 638; Cruz v. New York, 481 U.S. 186, 107 S.Ct. 1714, 95 L.Ed.2d 162). Here, as in People v. Hamlin, 71 N.Y.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Rodriguez v. Weprin, 15
...months after he filed his notice of appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed Rodriguez's convictions. See People v. Rodriguez, 176 A.D.2d 299, 574 N.Y.S.2d 399 (2d Dep't 1991), appeal denied, 79 N.Y.2d 863, 588 N.E.2d 770, 580 N.Y.S.2d 735 (1992), recons. denied, 79 N.Y.2d 1053, 596 N.E.2d 4......
-
Rodriguez v. Mitchell
...changed the outcome of the trial. On September 23, 1991, the Appellate Division affirmed Rodriguez's conviction, see People v. Rodriguez, 574 N.Y.S.2d 399 (2d Dep't 1991), and on January 28, 1992, Rodriguez was denied leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals, see 588 N.E.2d 770, 79 N.Y.2d 86......
- People v. Moore
-
People v. Rodriguez
...ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated September 23, 1991 ( People v. Rodriguez, 176 A.D.2d 299, 574 N.Y.S.2d 399), affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered December 22, 1983. ORDERED that the application is d......