From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Shields

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 3, 2002
295 A.D.2d 374 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

01-00061

Submitted May 6, 2002

June 3, 2002

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (DeRiggi, J.), rendered December 4, 2000, convicting him of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of those branches of the defendant's omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence and his statements to law enforcement officials.

Leon H. Tracy, Jericho, N.Y., for appellant.

Denis Dillon, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Karen Wigle Weiss and Steven R. Bernhard of counsel), for respondent.

DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, JJ.


ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that his waiver of his Miranda rights (see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436) and his consent to search his residence were rendered ineffective by intoxication is not preserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05; People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245), because the defendant withdrew his objection to the admission of his statements to law enforcement officials and certain physical evidence seized from his residence. In any event, his claim is without merit. The evidence at the suppression hearing failed to establish that the defendant was "intoxicated to the degree of mania, or of being unable to understand the meaning of his statements" (People v. Schompert, 19 N.Y.2d 300, 305, cert denied 389 U.S. 874; People v. Shabaz, 173 A.D.2d 498, 499).

Additionally, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15).

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.

RITTER, J.P., KRAUSMAN, FRIEDMANN and LUCIANO, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Shields

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 3, 2002
295 A.D.2d 374 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

People v. Shields

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, ETC., Respondent, v. JOHN SHIELDS, appellant

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

Date published: Jun 3, 2002

Citations

295 A.D.2d 374 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
742 N.Y.S.2d 909

Citing Cases

People v. Perez

denied389 U.S. 874, 88 S.Ct. 164, 19 L.Ed.2d 157) (see also People v. Adams, 26 N.Y.2d 129, 137, 309 N.Y.S.2d…

Shields v. Duncan

The court held further that the evidence of petitioner's guilt was legally sufficient, the verdict was not…