People v. Acosta
| Decision Date | 25 February 1980 |
| Citation | 74 A.D.2d 640,425 N.Y.S.2d 40 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Arturo ACOSTA, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Martin Goldberg, Brooklyn, for appellant.
Thomas R. Sullivan, Dist. Atty., Staten Island (George E. McVay, Asst. Dist. Atty., of counsel), for respondent.
Before HOPKINS, J. P., and LAZER, MARGETT and WEINSTEIN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeals by the defendant from four judgments of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, all rendered July 1, 1976, convicting him (1) upon a jury verdict, of robbery in the first degree and burglary in the second degree (Ind. No. 450-75), and (2) upon his pleas of guilty, of robbery in the first degree (Ind. No. 451-75), and two counts of burglary in the second degree (Ind. Nos. 453-75 and 456-75), and imposing sentences.
Judgments affirmed.
Prior to defendant's trial, a Huntley hearing (People v. Huntley, 15 N.Y.2d 72, 255 N.Y.S.2d 838, 204 N.E.2d 179) was held to determine the admissibility of statements defendant made to Detective Morris and of a written confession executed by defendant while in the custody of Morris. Defendant argues that at the conclusion of the hearing, the court failed to state its findings of fact and conclusions of law as is required by CPL 710.60 (subds. 4 and 6). It is settled that this court can make the necessary findings where a fair and full hearing on the motion to suppress provides an adequate record (People v. Cruz, 65 A.D.2d 558, 408 N.Y.S.2d 964; cf. People v. Massiah, 47 A.D.2d 931, 367 N.Y.S.2d 73; People v. Russo, 45 A.D.2d 1040, 357 N.Y.S.2d 890). We do not agree with the defendant that the instant hearing was any less than fair and full. Examining the testimony of the prosecution's witness and that of the defendant, we find that the People have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant's oral statements and written confession were voluntarily made after the requisite warnings were given to the defendant. We have examined defendant's other contentions, including the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, and find them to be without merit.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. James
...not testify at the pretrial suppression hearing. Ordinarily, we could make appropriate factual findings on appeal (e.g., People v. Acosta, 74 A.D.2d 640, 425 N.Y.S.2d 40; People v. Cruz, 65 A.D.2d 558, 408 N.Y.S.2d 964; People v. Thomas, 58 A.D.2d 899, 397 N.Y.S.2d 8). The difficulty here i......
-
People v. Lopez
...assessed the evidence, the Appellate Division has the power to make new findings of fact (CPL 470.15, subd. 1; People v. Acosta, 74 A.D.2d 640, 425 N.Y.S.2d 40; People v. Russo, 45 A.D.2d 1040, 357 N.Y.S.2d 890; see, also, CPLR 4404, subd. [b] ). Weight of evidence analysis involves a discr......
-
People v. White
...full hearing on the motion to suppress provides an adequate record (People v. Le Grand, 96 A.D.2d 891, 466 N.Y.S.2d 53; People v. Acosta, 74 A.D.2d 640, 425 N.Y.S.2d 40). It is evident from the facts established at the hearing that the defendant was taken into custody and "seized", so as to......
-
People v. Jakubowski
...the evidence and made the factual findings contained in the foregoing opinion pursuant to CPL 470.15 (subd. 1) (see People v. Acosta, 74 A.D.2d 640, 425 N.Y.S.2d 40; People v. Russo, 45 A.D.2d 1040, 357 N.Y.S.2d 890). The judgment should be Judgment unanimously affirmed. DOERR, O'DONNELL, M......