From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Santiago

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 17, 2001
289 A.D.2d 421 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

1999-09663

Submitted June 1, 2001.

December 17, 2001.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (J. Goldberg, J.), rendered October 6, 1999, convicting her of murder in the second degree and falsely reporting an incident in the third degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress her statements to law enforcement authorities.

Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (David P. Greenberg of counsel), for appellant.

Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Ann Bordley of counsel), for respondent.

Before: CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, J.P., SONDRA MILLER, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.


ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that her statements to law enforcement authorities on December 5, 1998, should have been suppressed because an unnecessary delay in her arraignment deprived her of the right to counsel is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Bartley, 230 A.D.2d 748, 749; People v. Silas, 158 A.D.2d 561, 562). In any event, her contention is without merit. There is no evidence that the arraignment was delayed for the purpose of depriving her of the right to counsel (see, People v. Mosley, 135 A.D.2d 662, 664; People v. Marinelli, 238 A.D.2d 525, 526; People v. Faison, 265 A.D.2d 422, 423; People v. Henry, 186 A.D.2d 986; People v. Wheeler, 123 A.D.2d 411, 412).

The defendant's argument that her first statement on December 5, 1998, should have been suppressed is unpersuasive in light of the evidence that she twice waived her Miranda rights on the previous day and that she was in continuous police custody leading up to that statement (see, People v. Thomas, 233 A.D.2d 347, 348; People v. Baker, 208 A.D.2d 758; People v. Crosby, 91 A.D.2d 20, 30).

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.

O'BRIEN, J.P., S. MILLER, SCHMIDT and COZIER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Santiago

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 17, 2001
289 A.D.2d 421 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

People v. Santiago

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, ETC., respondent, v. MARIA SANTIAGO, appellant

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

Date published: Dec 17, 2001

Citations

289 A.D.2d 421 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
734 N.Y.S.2d 239

Citing Cases

State v. Villafane

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court properly refused to submit to the jury the issue of…

People v. Rodgers

Similarly, the defendant’s specific arguments in support of his contention that the Supreme Court should…