People v. DeAngelo
| Decision Date | 11 February 2016 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Angel M. DeANGELO Sr., Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
136 A.D.3d 1119
25 N.Y.S.3d 405
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Angel M. DeANGELO Sr., Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Feb. 11, 2016.
Jeffrey L. Zimring, Albany, for appellant.
James E. Conboy, District Attorney, Fonda (Kelli P. McCoski of counsel), for respondent.
Before: PETERS, P.J., GARRY, EGAN JR., DEVINE and CLARK, JJ.
DEVINE, J.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Montgomery County (Catena, J.), rendered May 5, 2014, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of reckless endangerment in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and menacing in the second degree.
Defendant pleaded guilty to an amended indictment charging him with reckless endangerment in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and menacing in the second degree. No sentencing promises were made, and County Court imposed an aggregate prison sentence of 2 to 6 years. Defendant appeals, and we affirm.
Defendant initially asserts that a review of the grand jury minutes may disclose jurisdictional defects, an issue that survives his guilty plea (see People v. Hansen, 95 N.Y.2d 227, 231–232, 715 N.Y.S.2d 369, 738 N.E.2d 773 [2000] ; People v. Melendez, 48 A.D.3d 960, 960–961, 852 N.Y.S.2d 440 [2008], lv. denied 10 N.Y.3d 962, 863 N.Y.S.2d 146, 893 N.E.2d 452 [2008] ). Having reviewed the
minutes, we discovered no such infirmities (see People v. Melendez, 48 A.D.3d at 960–961, 852 N.Y.S.2d 440 ), and see no need to direct the release of the grand jury minutes to defendant as a prelude to further motion practice.
Next, defendant argues that statements he made several hours after sustaining a gunshot wound to his head should have been suppressed as involuntary because he lacked the ability to comprehend the ramifications
of waiving his Miranda rights. The evidence presented at the suppression hearing—including a video recording of the interrogation that showed defendant executing an acknowledgment and waiver of Miranda rights—demonstrated that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Fay
...voluntariness 63 N.Y.S.3d 578of his plea (see People v. Tetreault, 152 A.D.3d 1081, 1082, 60 N.Y.S.3d 540 [2017] ; People v. DeAngelo, 136 A.D.3d 1119, 1120, 25 N.Y.S.3d 405 [2016] ). To the extent that defendant argues that his counsel was ineffective due to his failure to file a CPL 30.30......
-
People v. McMillan, 109009
...Accordingly, County Court properly found that defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights (see People v. DeAngelo, 136 A.D.3d 1119, 1120, 25 N.Y.S.3d 405 [2016] ; People v. Meissler, 305 A.D.2d 724, 725–726, 759 N.Y.S.2d 255 [2003], lv denied 100 N.Y.2d 644, 769 N.Y.S.2d 2......
-
People v. Greene
...do not disclose any such infirmities (see CPL 210.35[5] ; People v. Busreth, 167 A.D.3d at 1090, 87 N.Y.S.3d 406 ; People v. DeAngelo, 136 A.D.3d 1119, 1119–1120, 25 N.Y.S.3d 405 [2016] ). To the extent that defendant challenges the voluntariness of his plea, this argument, as well as his r......
-
People v. Stocum
...to the credibility determinations of County Court, we perceive no abuse of discretion in its suppression ruling (see People v. DeAngelo, 136 A.D.3d 1119, 1120, 25 N.Y.S.3d 405 [2016] ; People v. Comfort, 6 A.D.3d at 873, 775 N.Y.S.2d 127 ; People v. Marx, 305 A.D.2d at 728, 759 N.Y.S.2d 251......