People v. Frazier

Decision Date15 June 2016
Citation140 A.D.3d 977,34 N.Y.S.3d 467,2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 04729
PartiesThe PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Arthur FRAZIER, appellant.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, NY (Joshua Norkin of counsel), for appellant, and appellant pro se.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (John M. Castellano, Stephanie D. Schwartz, Johnnette Traill, Merri Turk Lasky, and Nancy Fitzpatrick Talcott of counsel), for respondent.

MARK C. DILLON, J.P., ROBERT J. MILLER, SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, and VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, QueensCounty (Camacho, J.), rendered October 26, 2011, convicting him of burglary in the second degree (eight counts), upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Paynter, J.), of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress his statements to law enforcement officials.

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. The credibility determinations of a court following a suppression hearing are entitled to great deference on appeal and will not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see People v. Tissiera, 22 A.D.3d 611, 801 N.Y.S.2d 747 ). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the testimony of a police detective that the defendant waived his Miranda rights (see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 ) was not incredible, patently tailored to ify constitutional objections, or otherwise unworthy of belief (cf. People v. Garafolo, 44 A.D.2d 86, 87, 353 N.Y.S.2d 500 ; see generally People v. Calabria, 3 N.Y.3d 80, 82, 783 N.Y.S.2d 321, 816 N.E.2d 1257 ), and the court properly determined that the defendant's statements were knowing and voluntary.

Contrary to the contentions raised at Points 1 through 5 of the defendant's pro se supplemental brief, the defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel, as defense counsel provided meaningful representation (see People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584 ; People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400 ).

The arguments raised at Points 6 and 7 of the defendant's pro se supplemental brief are without merit.

The arguments raised at Points 8, 9, and 10 of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • People v. Jones
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • December 7, 2022
    ...was not incredible, patently tailored to nullify constitutional objections, or otherwise unworthy of belief (see People v. Frazier, 140 A.D.3d 977, 978, 34 N.Y.S.3d 467 ; People v. Daniels, 190 A.D.2d 858, 858, 593 N.Y.S.2d 878 ). Contrary to the People's argument, the defendant's contentio......
  • People v. Birch
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • April 10, 2019
    ...are entitled to great deference on appeal and will not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see People v. Frazier, 140 A.D.3d 977, 34 N.Y.S.3d 467 ; People v. Wilson, 96 A.D.3d 980, 981, 948 N.Y.S.2d 77 ). A review of the record supports the court's finding that Conaghan's......
  • People v. Robinson
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • October 28, 2020
    ...his request for a continuance so that he could retain another attorney is based on matter dehors the record (see People v. Frazier, 140 A.D.3d 977, 34 N.Y.S.3d 467 ; People v. Boyce, 118 A.D.3d 1016, 988 N.Y.S.2d 262 ). Likewise, the defendant's contention that he was deprived of the effect......
  • People v. Austin
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • March 2, 2022
    ...was lawful. Therefore, although we ordinarily defer to credibility determinations made by the hearing court (see People v. Frazier, 140 A.D.3d 977, 977–978, 34 N.Y.S.3d 467 ), in the circumstances of this case, we conclude that the branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppr......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT