People v. Bartlett
| Decision Date | 15 March 1993 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Michael E. BARTLETT, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Matthew Muraskin, Hempstead (Kent V. Moston and David Macdonald, of counsel), for appellant.
Denis Dillon, Dist. Atty., Mineola (Judith Sternberg and Lisa J. Becker, of counsel), for respondent.
Before EIBER, J.P., and O'BRIEN, RITTER and COPERTINO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Wexner, J.), rendered January 4, 1991, convicting him of burglary in the third degree (two counts), and criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress his oral and written statements.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Upon being arrested, the defendant was given the warning pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, as follows:
The defendant contends, among other things, that the last sentence of the warnings implied that his right to remain silent vanished once he obtained a lawyer, and so the warnings were improper. Consequently, he argues that the incriminating statements made by him should be excluded, and his conviction reversed. We disagree.
It should be noted that the defendant never raised this issue at his suppression hearing. Therefore, this issue is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v. Tutt, 38 N.Y.2d 1011, 1013, 384 N.Y.S.2d 444, 348 N.E.2d 920; People v. Lyons, 125 A.D.2d 593, 594, 509 N.Y.S.2d 654). In any event, "the 'rigidity' of Miranda [does not] exten[d] to the precise formulation of the warnings given a criminal defendant, [and] no talismanic incantation [is] required to satisfy its strictures" (California v. Prysock, 453 U.S. 355, 359, 101 S.Ct. 2806, 2809, 69 L.Ed.2d 696). "The inquiry is simply whether the warnings...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Dunbar
...1009; People v. Louisias, 29 A.D.3d 1017, 815 N.Y.S.2d 727; People v. Parker, 258 A.D.2d 479, 682 N.Y.S.2d 922; People v. Bartlett, 191 A.D.2d 574, 595 N.Y.S.2d 89; People v. Thomches, 172 A.D.2d 786, 569 N.Y.S.2d 158; People v. Lewis, 163 A.D.2d 328, 557 N.Y.S.2d 453). In these cited cases......
-
In re Luis P.
...on appeal" ( People v. Tutt, 38 N.Y.2d 1011, 1013, 384 N.Y.S.2d 444, 348 N.E.2d 920 [1976] ; see also 74 N.Y.S.3d 230 People v. Bartlett, 191 A.D.2d 574, 595 N.Y.S.2d 89 [2d Dept. 1993], lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 1010, 600 N.Y.S.2d 198, 616 N.E.2d 855 [1993] [finding that where a defendant does n......
-
People v. Vega
...rights. No more is required (see, California v. Prysock, 453 U.S. 355, 359, 101 S.Ct. 2806, 2809, 69 L.Ed.2d 696; People v. Bartlett, 191 A.D.2d 574, 575, 595 N.Y.S.2d 89, lv. denied 81 N.Y.2d 1010, 600 N.Y.S.2d 198, 616 N.E.2d 855). As for defendant's claims that the warnings did not appri......
-
People v. Wallace
...review and, in any event, without merit ( see People v. Louisias, 29 A.D.3d 1017, 1018–1019, 815 N.Y.S.2d 727;People v. Bartlett, 191 A.D.2d 574, 575, 595 N.Y.S.2d 89). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 34......