From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Sanchez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 10, 1986
117 A.D.2d 685 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Opinion

February 10, 1986

Appeal from the County Court, Orange County (Ingrassia, J.).


Judgment affirmed.

The record contains ample support for the finding by the hearing court that defendant's admissions were voluntarily made (see, People v. Oates, 104 A.D.2d 907, 910).

Defendant contends that his admissions should have been suppressed due to denial of his right to counsel which attached when he requested counsel during custodial interrogation. However, the testimony of Investigator Purcell, which the hearing court found credible, indicates that although at one point during the interrogation defendant noted that he "had best" get an attorney, he stated immediately thereafter that he did not want an attorney and initialed a written statement to that effect before the interrogation continued. At most, defendant's reference to an attorney was an indication that he thought it might be advisable to consult an attorney and was not an unequivocal invocation of his right to counsel (see, People v Cunningham, 49 N.Y.2d 203). Absent an unequivocal assertion of his right to counsel by defendant, the admissions are admissible (see, People v. Johnson, 55 N.Y.2d 931, revg 79 A.D.2d 201 on dissenting opn at App. Div., at pp 203-204; People v. Pelkey, 100 A.D.2d 663). Additionally, defendant's contention that admissions made by him were induced by misrepresentation is unsupported by the record.

We agree with the hearing court that the police had probable cause to arrest defendant. The complainant gave the arresting officers a detailed description of the robber, and of the car used in the robbery — including its license plate number. Shortly after the robbery, the police were able to locate the car through its license plate number at the registered owner's residence. The owner of the car was able to establish that he had loaned the car to defendant and that he was elsewhere at the time of the robbery. He gave the officers permission to search his apartment, and defendant, who partially matched the description given by complainant, was found hiding in a closet. In light of these factors, the officers had reasonable cause to believe that defendant had in fact committed the crime (see, People v. Brnja, 50 N.Y.2d 366; People v. Davidson, 110 A.D.2d 776). Mollen, P.J., Thompson, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Sanchez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 10, 1986
117 A.D.2d 685 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)
Case details for

People v. Sanchez

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. RAMON SANCHEZ…

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

Date published: Feb 10, 1986

Citations

117 A.D.2d 685 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Citing Cases

State v. Pinkney

Even crediting the defendant's statement that he requested a lawyer, the uncontroverted testimony established…

People v. Ward

Clearly, the defendant's second, and tentative response in this exchange, to wit, "I mean, shouldn't I have a…