People v. Williams
| Decision Date | 12 May 1986 |
| Citation | 502 N.Y.S.2d 93,120 A.D.2d 630 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Robert WILLIAMS, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Leonard H. Kaplan, Brooklyn (Carol Siegel, of counsel), for appellant.
Denis Dillon, Dist. Atty., Mineola (Anthony J. Girese and Bruce E. Whitney, of counsel), for respondent.
Before MOLLEN, P.J., and LAWRENCE, EIBER and KUNZEMAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from two judgments of the County Court, Nassau County (Harrington, J.), both rendered December 7, 1982, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (15 counts), rape in the first degree (three counts), sodomy in the first degree, burglary in the first degree (three counts), aggravated sexual abuse, and assault in the second degree pursuant to indictment no. 54697; attempted murder in the second degree (two counts), rape in the first degree, assault in the first degree (six counts), and robbery in the first degree (122 counts), pursuant to indictment no. 54775, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.
Judgments affirmed.
The defendant claims that his written and oral confessions were involuntary because of the length of time he was in custody prior to booking and arraignment coupled with an alleged promise of leniency made by one of the interrogating officers.
The record reveals that the defendant voluntarily surrender and was arrested at 11:00 A.M. on June 4, 1982 and that he was arraigned at 11:30 P.M. that evening. During this time span, the defendant was provided with meals and was afforded the opportunity to speak privately with his family. He was also questioned by the police and interviewed on videotape by an Assistant District Attorney. The defendant was placed in a succession of lineups and was identified by victims of the crimes as well as police who observed him during the stakeout. Although the defendant was arraigned approximately 12 1/2 hours after he was taken into custody, it does not appear that the delay was unnecessary (see, People v. Williams, 112 A.D.2d 259, 491 N.Y.S.2d 706; cf. People v. Holland, 48 N.Y.2d 861, 424 N.Y.S.2d 351, 400 N.E.2d 293).
Further, on review of the record it is apparent that the police officer's statement to the defendant was not an "impermissible promise * * * express or implied" since "there were no absolute assurances given that the defendant's co-operation would result in more favorable treatment" (People v. Perry, 77 A.D.2d 269, 272-273, 433 N.Y.S.2d 138)...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Carter
...may be imposed (Penal Law § 70.25; see, e.g., People v. Brathwaite, 63 N.Y.2d 839, 482 N.Y.S.2d 253, 472 N.E.2d 29; People v. Williams, 120 A.D.2d 630, 520 N.Y.S.2d 93). Thus, resolution of this case with a misdemeanor guilty plea would both subvert the action of the grand jury and contrave......
-
People v. Norris
...there is no evidence that the delay between the defendant's arrest and his arraignment was unnecessary (CPL 140.20; People v. Williams, App.Div., 502 N.Y.S.2d 93; People v. Williams, 112 A.D.2d 259, 491 N.Y.S.2d 706), and, in any event, "unwarranted delay in arraignment is but one of the ma......
-
People v. Drake
...consecutive sentencing was proper (see, People v. Brathwaite, 63 N.Y.2d 839, 842, 482 N.Y.S.2d 253, 472 N.E.2d 29; People v. Williams, 120 A.D.2d 630, 502 N.Y.S.2d 93; People v. Nieves, 111 A.D.2d 83, 489 N.Y.S.2d Judgment unanimously affirmed. ...
-
People v. Boardman
...arraignment was for the primary purpose of avoiding the effect of the Samuels rule, as the defendant contends (see, People v. Williams, 120 A.D.2d 630, 631, 502 N.Y.S.2d 93, lv. denied 68 N.Y.2d 761, 506 N.Y.S.2d 1049, 497 N.E.2d 719). In any event, even if the delay could be construed as i......