From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Ortlieb

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Dec 22, 1994
84 N.Y.2d 989 (N.Y. 1994)

Summary

In Ortlieb, the defendant argued that the confession he gave to police approximately five hours after his arrest should have been suppressed because police delayed his arraignment for the purpose of depriving him of the right to counsel.

Summary of this case from People v. Ramos

Opinion

Argued November 29, 1994

Decided December 22, 1994

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department, Nathaniel B. Merrell, J.

John A. Cirando, Syracuse, Patrick J. Haber and Ivette Iza Zenner for appellant.

James P. O'Rourke, District Attorney of Lewis County, Lowville, for respondent.


MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

On March 29, 1992, at approximately 7:00 A.M., defendant was arrested in connection with the stabbing death of his former girlfriend. Defendant was advised of his Miranda rights upon arrest and again at the station house. At 9:30, defendant agreed to talk to the officers without an attorney present and, at 12:15 P.M., signed a written statement confessing to the crime. Defendant was arraigned at 1:00 P.M. At the Huntley hearing, one of the interrogating officers testified that the reason defendant was not taken for arraignment at 9:30 was that the police "wanted to talk to him." County Court found that defendant competently and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights and accordingly denied suppression of the statement. Defendant pleaded guilty to second degree murder, and the Appellate Division affirmed.

Defendant contends that he was entitled to suppression on the ground that arraignment was postponed for the sole purpose of depriving him of the right to counsel, a contention not supported by the record. We therefore conclude that there was no "unnecessary delay" (CPL 140.20), and thus suppression was properly denied (see, People v Wilson, 56 N.Y.2d 692, 694; see also, Preiser, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 11A, CPL 140.20, at 540).

Chief Judge KAYE and Judges SIMONS, TITONE, BELLACOSA, SMITH, LEVINE and CIPARICK concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.


Summaries of

People v. Ortlieb

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Dec 22, 1994
84 N.Y.2d 989 (N.Y. 1994)

In Ortlieb, the defendant argued that the confession he gave to police approximately five hours after his arrest should have been suppressed because police delayed his arraignment for the purpose of depriving him of the right to counsel.

Summary of this case from People v. Ramos
Case details for

People v. Ortlieb

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. BRUCE ORTLIEB…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Dec 22, 1994

Citations

84 N.Y.2d 989 (N.Y. 1994)
622 N.Y.S.2d 501
646 N.E.2d 803

Citing Cases

People v. Ramos

Instead, he argues that his State constitutional right to counsel arose when the officers deliberately…

People v. Rojas

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed. Contrary to the defendant's assertion on appeal, we find that the…