People v. Bonilla
| Decision Date | 15 April 2015 |
| Docket Number | 2012-05037, Ind. No. 202/11. |
| Citation | 127 A.D.3d 985,2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 03176,6 N.Y.S.3d 147 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Ulises BONILLA, appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
127 A.D.3d 985
6 N.Y.S.3d 147
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 03176
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent
v.
Ulises BONILLA, appellant.
2012-05037, Ind. No. 202/11.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
April 15, 2015.
Andrew E. MacAskill, Westbury, N.Y., for appellant.
Madeline Singas, Acting District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Tammy J. Smiley and Laurie K. Gibbons of counsel), for respondent.
RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P., LEONARD B. AUSTIN, SANDRA L. SGROI, and HECTOR D. LaSALLE, JJ.
Opinion
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Peck, J.), rendered May 15, 2012, convicting him of murder in the second degree, rape in the first degree, sexual abuse in the first degree (two counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, and endangering the welfare of a child, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Honorof, J.), of those branches of the defendant's omnibus motion which were to suppress his statements to law enforcement officials and to sever certain counts in the indictment.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress his statements to law enforcement officials. Contrary to the defendant's contention, the record supports the Supreme Court's finding that the defendant did not unequivocally request the assistance of counsel before making statements to law enforcement officials (see People v. Pinkney, 48 A.D.3d 707, 707–708, 852 N.Y.S.2d 306 ; People v. Thompson, 271 A.D.2d 555, 706 N.Y.S.2d 136 ; People v. Dehmler, 188 A.D.2d 1056, 1057, 591 N.Y.S.2d 918 ; People v. Diaz, 161 A.D.2d 789, 556 N.Y.S.2d 128 ; People v. Sanchez, 117 A.D.2d 685, 686, 498 N.Y.S.2d 426 ).
Moreover, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to sever certain counts in the indictment, since...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Jones
..., 69 N.Y.2d at 895, 515 N.Y.S.2d 227, 507 N.E.2d 1083 ; People v. Senat , 165 A.D.3d 705, 85 N.Y.S.3d 99 ; People v. Bonilla , 127 A.D.3d 985, 986, 6 N.Y.S.3d 147 ). The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court's Sandoval ruling (see People v. Sandoval , 34 N.Y.2d 371, 357 N.Y.S.2d 849......
-
People v. Plass
...where counts are properly joined under subsection (b), a court does not have the authority to sever the counts (see People v. Bonilla, 127 A.D.3d 985, 986, 6 N.Y.S.3d 147 ; People v. Beecham, 74 A.D.3d 1216, 904 N.Y.S.2d 727 ).Here, the alleged conduct forming the basis for count 10 of the ......
-
People v. Senat
...to sever them (see CPL 200.20[3] ; People v. Bongarzone, 69 N.Y.2d at 895, 515 N.Y.S.2d 227, 507 N.E.2d 1083 ; People v. Bonilla, 127 A.D.3d 985, 986, 6 N.Y.S.3d 147 ). The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ......
-
Bonilla v. Griffin
...Br. at 19-60, ECF No. 10-5.)10 On April 15, 2015, the Second Department affirmed petitioner's conviction. People v. Bonilla, 127 A.D.3d 985, 985 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2015.) The Second Department rejected petitioner's arguments regarding insufficiency of the evidence for the conviction, ......