From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Santos

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 23, 1998
248 A.D.2d 649 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

March 23, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marrus, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contentions, the record establishes that he did not invoke his right to counsel when he was given his first set of Miranda warnings (see, People v. Cyrus, 170 A.D.2d 526; People v. Moore, 168 A.D.2d 463). Accordingly, it was not improper for the police, four hours later, to obtain a statement from the defendant when he waived his right to remain silent after receiving a new set of Miranda warnings (see, Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96; People v. Ates, 157 A.D.2d 786; People v. Gary, 31 N.Y.2d 68). Therefore, the court properly denied the defendant's motion to suppress the statement.

The sentence was neither harsh nor excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).

O'Brien, J. P., Thompson, Sullivan and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Santos

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 23, 1998
248 A.D.2d 649 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

People v. Santos

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. EDGAR SANTOS, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Mar 23, 1998

Citations

248 A.D.2d 649 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
669 N.Y.S.2d 946

Citing Cases

Santos v. Artuz

The Appellate Division, Second Department, rejected this claim and, on March 23, 1998, unammously affirmed…

Santos v. Artuz

The Appellate Division, Second Department, rejected this claim and, on March 23, 1998, unanimously affirmed…