From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Gauger

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 27, 2000
268 A.D.2d 386 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

January 27, 2000

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Antonio Brandveen, J., at suppression hearing; Harold Beeler, J., at plea and sentence), rendered October 29, 1996, convicting defendant of attempted burglary in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to a term of 6 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

Barbara Jane Hutter, for respondent.

Edward S. Graves, for defendant-appellant.

ROSENBERGER, J.P., WILLIAMS, LERNER, ANDRIAS, FRIEDMAN, JJ.


Defendant's suppression motion was properly denied. We see no reason to disturb the court's credibility determinations, which are supported by the record. There was no need for the police to repeat previously administered Miranda warnings prior to questioning defendant since the interrogation was within a reasonable time after the initial warnings and custody had remained continuous (see, People v. Thomas, 233 A.D.2d 347, lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 1102). Moreover, prior to questioning defendant, the detective showed him the Miranda form defendant had previously signed and advised him that these warnings were still in effect, whereupon defendant replied that he understood (see, People v. Hotchkiss, 260 A.D.2d 241, lv denied 93 N.Y.2d 1003).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

People v. Gauger

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 27, 2000
268 A.D.2d 386 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

People v. Gauger

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. GREG GAUGER, a/k/a…

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

Date published: Jan 27, 2000

Citations

268 A.D.2d 386 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
703 N.Y.S.2d 436

Citing Cases

People v. Peres

The question of how much time must pass before a second reading of the Miranda warnings is necessary to…

People v. Lexune

Thus, Francois was not required to re-administer the Miranda warnings to the defendant. Seee.g.People v.…