People v. Leta
| Decision Date | 09 June 2017 |
| Citation | 55 N.Y.S.3d 847,151 A.D.3d 1761 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Lynn LETA, Defendant–Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
151 A.D.3d 1761
55 N.Y.S.3d 847
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Lynn LETA, Defendant–Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
June 9, 2017.
Timothy P. Donaher, Public Defender, Rochester, Trevett Cristo P.C. (Eric M. Dolan of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant.
Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Joseph Plukas of Counsel), for Respondent.
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, CARNI, CURRAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting her following a nonjury trial of two counts of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree (Penal Law § 170.25 ) and one count of identity theft in the second degree (§ 190.79[1] ). The charges arose from defendant's deposit of two forged checks into her bank account. Defendant contends that the conviction of identity theft is not supported by legally sufficient evidence because the People did not establish that she
assumed the identity of another person. Defendant failed to preserve that contention for our review inasmuch as she moved for a trial order of dismissal on a different ground (see People v. Thomas, 136 A.D.3d 1390, 1390, 25 N.Y.S.3d 500, lv. denied 27 N.Y.3d 1140, 39 N.Y.S.3d 122, 61 N.E.3d 521, reconsideration denied 28 N.Y.3d 974, 43 N.Y.S.3d 262, 66 N.E.3d 8 ) and she failed to renew the motion after presenting evidence (see People v. Graham, 148 A.D.3d 1517, 1517, 50 N.Y.S.3d 196 ). In any event, we reject that contention (see People v. Yuson, 133 A.D.3d 1221, 1221–1222, 20 N.Y.S.3d 263, lv. denied 27 N.Y.3d 1157, 39 N.Y.S.3d 391, 62 N.E.3d 131 ).
Contrary to defendant's further contention, we conclude that Supreme Court properly refused to suppress the statement she made to a police officer without the benefit of Miranda warnings. The record supports the court's determination that "a reasonable person in defendant's position, innocent of any crime, would not have believed that he or she was in custody, and thus Miranda warnings were not required" (People v. Lunderman, 19 A.D.3d 1067, 1068, 796 N.Y.S.2d 481, lv. denied 5 N.Y.3d 830, 804 N.Y.S.2d 44, 837...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Green
...983, 108 N.Y.S.3d 586 [4th Dept. 2019], lv denied 34 N.Y.3d 1015, 114 N.Y.S.3d 741, 138 N.E.3d 470 [2019] ; People v. Leta , 151 A.D.3d 1761, 1762, 55 N.Y.S.3d 847 [4th Dept. 2017], lv denied 30 N.Y.3d 981, 67 N.Y.S.3d 583, 89 N.E.3d 1263 [2017] ). Indeed, the record supports the court's co......
-
People v. Standsblack
...1067, 1068, 796 N.Y.S.2d 481 [2005], lv denied 5 N.Y.3d 830, 804 N.Y.S.2d 44, 837 N.E.2d 743 [2005] ; see People v. Leta, 151 A.D.3d 1761, 1762, 55 N.Y.S.3d 847 [4th Dept. 2017], lv denied 30 N.Y.3d 981, 67 N.Y.S.3d 583, 89 N.E.3d 1263 [2017] ). Additionally, we conclude that the deputy's q......
-
People v. Bursey
...of dismissal on that ground (see People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 19, 629 N.Y.S.2d 173, 652 N.E.2d 919 [1995] ; People v. Leta, 151 A.D.3d 1761, 1762, 55 N.Y.S.3d 847 [4th Dept.2017] ). In any event, we conclude that defendant's contention is without merit (see People v. Johnson, 94 A.D.3d 140......
-
People v. Green
... ... court that no Miranda warnings were necessary before ... he spoke to the investigator because defendant was not in ... custody (see People v Baez, 175 A.D.3d 982, 983 [4th ... Dept 2019], lv denied 34 N.Y.3d 1015 [2019]; ... People v Leta, 151 A.D.3d 1761, 1762 [4th Dept ... 2017], lv denied 30 N.Y.3d 981 [2017]). Indeed, the ... record supports the court's conclusions, including that ... defendant went home after the interview terminated and that ... he made the statement at issue spontaneously as he was ... ...