People v. Busuttil
| Decision Date | 23 December 1985 |
| Citation | 496 N.Y.S.2d 493,115 A.D.2d 655 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. John BUSUTTIL, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Lewis R. Freidman, New York City, for appellant.
John J. Santucci, Dist. Atty., Kew Gardens (William Schrager, of counsel), for respondent.
Before LAZER, J.P., and BRACKEN, WEINSTEIN and KUNZEMAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Gallagher, J.), rendered July 12, 1984, convicting him of attempted robbery in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial (Linakis, J.), of those branches of defendant's motion which sought suppression of statements and physical evidence.
Judgment affirmed.
The hearing court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress his statements and certain physical evidence seized from his house at the time of his arrest. Defendant's claim that Miranda warnings should have been given to him earlier and before he admitted that he was with the codefendants on the night of the robbery is based on the erroneous assumption that Miranda warnings must be given to people suspected of having engaged in criminal activity, and is without merit. The court in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 82 L.Ed.2d 694, held that the prosecution may not use statements stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant, unless it demonstrates that the four appropriate warnings were given and defendant waived his rights. Criminal Term's finding that defendant was not in custody at the time he gave his statements to the police is supported by the evidence (see, Matter of Kwok T., 43 N.Y.2d 213, 401 N.Y.S.2d 52, 371 N.E.2d 814; People v. Rodney P., 21 N.Y.2d 1, 286 N.Y.S.2d 225, 233 N.E.2d 255; Matter of Matthew O., 91 A.D.2d 1093, 458 N.Y.S.2d 304; People v. Munro, 86 A.D.2d 683, 446 N.Y.S.2d 511).
Defendant's right to an adjudication of his youthful offender status was waived inasmuch as he made no assertion at the time of sentence that he was entitled to such an adjudication (see, People v. McGowen, 42 N.Y.2d 905, 397 N.Y.S.2d 993, 366 N.E.2d 1347; People v. Lopez, 81 A.D.2d 675, 440 N.Y.S.2d 563; People v. Davis, 66 A.D.2d 801, 411 N.Y.S.2d 201).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Williams
...Di Marcantonio, 117 A.D.2d 612, 613, 498 N.Y.S.2d 160, lv. denied 67 N.Y.2d 882, 501 N.Y.S.2d 1033, 492 N.E.2d 1240; People v. Busuttil, 115 A.D.2d 655, 496 N.Y.S.2d 493). In any event, the defendant should have sought review of the issue by means of a direct appeal (see, People v. Ferguson......
-
People v. Feneque
...his Miranda rights does not compel a finding that he was in custody, particularly under these circumstances (see, People v. Busuttil, 115 A.D.2d 655, 496 N.Y.S.2d 493). In sum, there is no reason to disturb the factual finding of the hearing court that the defendant was not in custody until......
-
People v. Flannery
...the time he made the subject inculpatory statements is supported by the evidence and should not be disturbed (see, People v. Busuttil, 115 A.D.2d 655, 656, 496 N.Y.S.2d 493). Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution ( see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.......
-
People v. DiMarcantonio
...he must be deemed to have waived such relief (see, People v. McGowen, 42 N.Y.2d 905, 397 N.Y.S.2d 993, 366 N.E.2d 1347; People v. Busuttil, App.Div., 496 N.Y.S.2d 493). Furthermore, even had such a request been made and denied, the facts at bar are not such as would warrant the award of you......