From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Vasquez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 18, 1992
183 A.D.2d 864 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

May 18, 1992

Appeal from the County Court, Suffolk County (Weissman, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant was questioned at the scene of the crime after voluntarily waiving his Miranda rights. On appeal, the defendant contends that the statements he made at the police station two to three hours later were involuntary and should be suppressed because the police officer who questioned him failed to repeat the Miranda warnings. This contention is without merit. "It is well settled that where a person in police custody has been issued Miranda warnings and voluntarily and intelligently waives those rights, it is not necessary to repeat the warnings prior to subsequent questioning within a reasonable time thereafter, so long as the custody has remained continuous" (People v. Glinsman, 107 A.D.2d 710, lv denied 64 N.Y.2d 889, cert denied 472 U.S. 1021; see also, People v. Morris, 140 A.D.2d 551; People v. Allen, 138 A.D.2d 612).

We find that the sentence imposed was not excessive. Bracken, J.P., Rosenblatt, Miller and O'Brien, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Vasquez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 18, 1992
183 A.D.2d 864 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

People v. Vasquez

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. MICHAEL VASQUEZ…

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

Date published: May 18, 1992

Citations

183 A.D.2d 864 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
584 N.Y.S.2d 104

Citing Cases

People v. Ward

Nor are we persuaded that County Court erred in denying defendant's motion to suppress his second inculpatory…

People v. Telese

The People have established, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the statements made in the initial interview…