Summary
In People v. Hutchinson, 59 NY2d 923, 924 (1983) the Court of Appeals found that the trial court committed reversible error when it denied the defendant's motion to suppress statements on the ground that the police failed to advise him that he was entitled to the assistance of counsel during his questioning by the officer, "an aspect of the warnings to which defendant concededly was entitled".
Summary of this case from People v. JhuOpinion
Argued June 3, 1983
Decided June 28, 1983
Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, STANLEY PARNESS, J.
Valerie Hriciga and William E. Hellerstein for appellant.
Mario Merola, District Attorney ( Jeremy Gutman and Peter D. Coddington of counsel), for respondent.
MEMORANDUM.
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, appellant's conviction vacated, his statements suppressed, and the case remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings.
At the pretrial hearing appellant explicitly grounded his motion to suppress statements made by him to Police Officer Silva at his residence and later at the transit police district office, inter alia, on the failure of the officer giving appellant his constitutional preinterrogation warning to have included advice that appellant was entitled to the assistance of counsel during his questioning by the officer, an aspect of the warnings to which appellant concededly was entitled. Although the suppression court denied the motion to suppress based on a determination that the warnings given were legally sufficient, examination of the transcript of the hearing discloses the absence of any proof that the component of the warnings specifically identified by appellant had been given. Accordingly, it was error to have denied the motion to suppress the statements made.
With respect to appellant's request that his plea of guilty to a violation of probation, which he asserts was predicated on the robbery conviction we are now vacating, also be vacated, we note that this question is not before us on appeal from the Appellate Division's order affirming the judgment of conviction. Accordingly, our failure to grant the relief requested should be accorded no significance in any proceedings appellant may hereafter pursue concerning the violation of probation.
Chief Judge COOKE and Judges JASEN, JONES, WACHTLER, MEYER and SIMONS concur.
Order reversed, conviction vacated, defendant's statements suppressed and case remitted to Supreme Court, Bronx County, for further proceedings on the indictment in a memorandum.