People v. Perez
| Decision Date | 04 November 1993 |
| Citation | 603 N.Y.S.2d 197,198 A.D.2d 540 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Juan PEREZ, Also Known as Francisco Cocco, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Martin Cirincione, Schenectady, for appellant.
Robert M. Carney, Dist. Atty. (Karen A. Drago of counsel), Schenectady, for respondent.
Before MIKOLL, J.P., and MERCURE, CARDONA, MAHONEY and CASEY, JJ.
MIKOLL, Justice Presiding.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County (Harrigan, J.), rendered February 4, 1991, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree.
Defendant was indicted on two counts charging criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second and fifth degrees and convicted of both counts after trial before a jury. He was sentenced to a prison term of 8 1/3 years to life on the second degree count and 2 1/3 to 7 years on the fifth degree count. The sentences are to run concurrently.
The record indicates that members of the City of Schenectady Police Department obtained and executed a search warrant permitting them to search an apartment located at 556 Summit Avenue for cocaine. The officers found defendant alone in the apartment along with a substantial amount of cocaine and drug paraphernalia in an allegedly doorless closet off a bedroom. Defendant was arrested at the scene of the raid and then arraigned at the Schenectady police station. Investigator Peter McGrath interviewed defendant in order to complete a prearrest report form allegedly required in the booking process. McGrath asked defendant, among other pedigree questions, "where do you live?" and he responded, "556 Summit Avenue." After the pedigree information was entered into the police computer, defendant's booking sheet was generated.
On this appeal defendant argues that County Court erred in admitting the statement as to his address, because he was not given his Miranda warnings before he was questioned, and in denying his request for a suppression hearing regarding the voluntariness of the statement. Defendant also contends that defense counsel's representation at and before trial and at sentencing was so incompetent and inadequate that it denied him his constitutional right to effective and reasonable assistance of counsel. Additionally, defendant argues that defense counsel was ill at times during the trial, resulting in his inattentiveness and unpreparedness, and contributing to counsel's inadequate representation. Defendant also maintains that his sentence was excessive.
We have considered defendant's arguments for reversal, for modification of sentence as excessive and for inadequate representation as demonstrated by the record, and find them without merit. The judgment should be affirmed. However, we note that insofar as defendant relies on matters outside the record to challenge the adequacy of representation, such may possibly be pursued by a CPL article 440 motion if it is deemed advisable.
Defendant's primary argument for reversal is that County Court erred in denying his request for a suppression hearing before trial as to the voluntariness of his oral statement admitting that his address was 556 Summit Avenue. The question was asked while McGrath was completing a prearrest form for purposes of booking defendant after his initial arrest. In our view the pedigree statement was not subject to suppression because the People were entitled to make reasonable inquiry concerning an arrested individual's identity, including his name and address, without the necessity of formal warnings (see, People v. Rivera, 26 N.Y.2d 304, 309, 310 N.Y.S.2d 287, 258 N.E.2d 699; People v. Dixon, 147 A.D.2d 769, 773, 537 N.Y.S.2d 991 revd on other...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Slade
...information not subject to CPL 710.30 notice requirements even if the statement later proves to be inculpatory (see People v. Perez, 198 A.D.2d 540, 542, 603 N.Y.S.2d 197, lv. denied 82 N.Y.2d 929, 610 N.Y.S.2d 181, 632 N.E.2d 491 ). That is "[b]ecause responses to routine booking questions......
-
People v. Nusbaum
...v. Garcia, 187 A.D.2d 868, 590 N.Y.S.2d 565, lv. denied 81 N.Y.2d 885, 597 N.Y.S.2d 946, 613 N.E.2d 978; see also, People v. Perez, 198 A.D.2d 540, 603 N.Y.S.2d 197, lvs. denied 82 N.Y.2d 923, 929, 610 N.Y.S.2d 175, 181, 632 N.E.2d 485, 491). Such claims based on matters in the record may p......
-
People v. Parker
...1 rather than a direct appeal (see, e.g., People v. Love, 57 N.Y.2d 998, 999-1000, 457 N.Y.S.2d 238, 443 N.E.2d 486; People v. Perez, 198 A.D.2d 540, 542, 603 N.Y.S.2d 197, lvs. denied 82 N.Y.2d 923, 929, 610 N.Y.S.2d 175, 181, 632 N.E.2d 485, 491; People v. Garcia, 187 A.D.2d 868, 590 N.Y.......
-
People v. Hamilton
...their intent to offer such information (see, People v. Rodney, 85 N.Y.2d 289, 293, 624 N.Y.S.2d 95, 648 N.E.2d 471; People v. Perez, 198 A.D.2d 540, 542, 603 N.Y.S.2d 197, lv. denied 82 N.Y.2d 929, 610 N.Y.S.2d 181, 632 N.E.2d 491; People v. Haddock, 174 A.D.2d 773, 774, 570 N.Y.S.2d 719, l......