People v. Tissiera

• Decision Date: 11 October 2005
• Docket Number: 2003-01907.
• Citation: 22 A.D.3d 611,2005 NY Slip Op 07572,801 N.Y.S.2d 747
• Parties: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. GEORGE E. TISSIERA, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

22 A.D.3d 611

801 N.Y.S.2d 747

2005 NY Slip Op 07572

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v.GEORGE E. TISSIERA, Appellant.

2003-01907.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Department.

October 11, 2005.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Hayes, J.), rendered February 26, 2003, convicting him of attempted assault in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, 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.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the County Court properly denied that branch of his motion which was to suppress his statements to the police.The factual findings and credibility determinations of the County Court following a suppression hearing are entitled to great deference on appeal and will not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (seePeople v. Myers,17 AD3d 699, 700[2005], lv denied5 NY3d 766[2005];People v. Leggio,305 AD2d 518, 519[2003]).Here, the County Court properly determined that the defendant's statements were voluntarily made after he knowingly and intelligently waived his Miranda rights(seeMiranda v. Arizona,384 US 436[1966];People v. Myers, supra).

In addition, the County Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea(seeCPL 220.60 [3]).The defendant's allegations in support of that motion were either...