People v. Sanchez
| Decision Date | 14 January 2015 |
| Citation | 124 A.D.3d 685,1 N.Y.S.3d 266 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Daniel SANCHEZ, appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
124 A.D.3d 685
1 N.Y.S.3d 266
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,
v.
Daniel SANCHEZ, appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Jan. 14, 2015.
Anthony M. Giordano, Ossining, N.Y., for appellant.
Janet DiFiore, District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (John J. Carmody and Richard L. Hecht of counsel), for respondent.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., THOMAS A. DICKERSON, LEONARD B. AUSTIN, and JEFFREY A. COHEN, JJ.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Zambelli, J.), rendered April 24, 2012, convicting him of murder in the first degree (five counts), attempted murder in the second degree (four counts), assault in the first degree (four counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (five counts), robbery in the first degree, and burglary in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of those branches of the defendant's omnibus motion which were to suppress statements to law enforcement officials.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant and several accomplices entered an apartment looking for someone who had allegedly interfered with their drug dealings, and demanded money after threatening to kill everyone in the apartment. Two male occupants of the apartment were shot and killed, and the defendant was among the shooters. Four other occupants of the apartment were also shot, though not fatally, including a teenage girl and a five-year-old child. Three of the surviving victims identified the defendant because they knew him. Upon his arrest,
and after the administration of Miranda warnings (see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 ), the defendant ultimately admitted his participation in the crime orally and on videotape.
In response to the defendant's motion to suppress his statements to law enforcement officials, the Supreme Court conducted a pretrial Huntley hearing (see People v. Huntley, 15 N.Y.2d 72, 255 N.Y.S.2d 838, 204 N.E.2d 179 ) to determine whether the defendant's confession was given voluntarily and in accordance with his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court held that the defendant had not unequivocally invoked the right to counsel, and that his various inculpatory statements had been voluntarily uttered upon his waiver of his Miranda rights.
On January 12, 2012, just before jury selection was to commence, the defendant entered a plea of guilty to all counts of the indictment, which included five counts of murder in the first degree, four counts of attempted murder in the second degree, and related charges, with the understanding that he would be sentenced to maximum concurrent sentences of life imprisonment without parole upon the convictions of murder in the first degree, and maximum sentences on the convictions of attempted murder in the second degree, assault in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, robbery in the first degree, and burglary in the first degree, to run consecutively to the sentence imposed upon the convictions of murder in the first degree. At sentencing, the sentences imposed upon the defendant's convictions of assault in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and robbery in the first degree were made to run concurrently with the five concurrent terms of life imprisonment imposed upon the convictions of murder in the first degree and the four consecutive terms of imprisonment of 25 years imposed upon the convictions attempted murder in the second degree. This appeal brings up for review issues of suppression, effectiveness of counsel, and excessiveness of sentence.
The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress the statements
he made to the arresting detectives during a second interview with those detectives, which he specifically requested only hours after denying his involvement in the shootings during a prior interview with them. The evidence at the suppression hearing included a videotape of the second interview, which established that, after the defendant was read his Miranda rights, his statements...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- People v. Speaks
-
People v. Tiger
...standard,’ " as set forth in Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 688, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (People v. Sanchez, 124 A.D.3d 685, 687, 1 N.Y.S.3d 266 ). "The second prong of the federal standard requires a showing of prejudice (see Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. at 687, 104 ......
- People v. Reardon
-
People v. Jones
...N.Y.S.2d 419 ; People v. Holmes, 92 A.D.3d 957, 957, 938 N.Y.S.2d 902 ).The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Sanchez, 124 A.D.3d 685, 689, 1 N.Y.S.3d 266 ; People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675 ...