DUNN, ALTON A., PEOPLE v ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •            SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
    Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
    325
    KA 08-00139
    PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.
    THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,
    V                              MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
    ALTON A. DUNN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
    TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (DAVID M. ABBATOY, JR.,
    OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
    MICHAEL C. GREEN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (STEPHEN X. O’BRIEN OF
    COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
    Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (John
    J. Ark, J.), rendered November 15, 2007. The judgment convicted
    defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the second degree.
    It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is
    unanimously affirmed.
    Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his
    plea of guilty of robbery in the second degree (Penal Law § 160.10 [2]
    [b]), defendant contends that Supreme Court erred in refusing to
    suppress statements that he made while in custody at the police
    station, before he was advised of his Miranda warnings. Although
    defendant is correct that he had not been Mirandized when two
    investigators initially questioned him in an interview room, defendant
    did not make any inculpatory statements at that time. In fact, he
    consistently denied involvement in the crime. Defendant was left
    alone for approximately one hour before one of the two investigators
    returned to the interview room, at which time Miranda warnings were
    administered and the questioning continued. Defendant made the
    incriminating statements at issue during the second interrogation.
    Contrary to defendant’s contention, we conclude that there was a
    sufficiently “definite, pronounced break in the interrogation” to
    dissipate the taint resulting from the initial Miranda violation
    (People v Chapple, 38 NY2d 112, 115; see People v Paulman, 5 NY3d 122,
    130-131; People v Smith, 275 AD2d 951, lv denied 96 NY2d 739), and
    that the court therefore properly refused to suppress the
    incriminating statements at issue. We reject defendant’s further
    challenge to the severity of the sentence.
    Entered:    April 1, 2011                          Patricia L. Morgan
    Clerk of the Court
    

Document Info

Docket Number: KA 08-00139

Filed Date: 4/1/2011

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/8/2016