TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

People v. Ramos

The People of the State of New York v. Hilberto Ramos

People v. Ramos, 282 A.D.2d 623 (2001)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Subsequent history: aff'd, People v. Ramos, 780 N.E.2d 506 (N.Y. 2002). (read from the later opinion; check before relying)

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
April 16, 2001
Citations
282 A.D.2d 623723 N.Y.S.2d 3822001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3797

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Eng, J.), rendered September 23, 1998, convicting him of murder in the second degree, burglary in the first degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

A claimed deprivation of the State constitutional right to counsel may be raised on appeal notwithstanding that the issue was not preserved for appellate review by having been specifically raised in a suppression motion or at trial (see, People v Samuels, 49 NY2d 218, 221 ). This rule, however, does not dispense with the requirement of a sufficient factual record to permit appellate review (see, People v Kinchen, 60 NY2d 772, 773-774 ). By failing to raise this issue at his pretrial suppression hearing, and by failing to move to reopen that hearing based on any trial testimony, the defendant has not presented a factual record sufficient to permit appellate review of his claim that the police deliberately delayed his arraignment so that they could obtain an uncounseled confession.

The court providently exercised its discretion in determining which portions of the psychiatric records of one of the People’s witnesses were admissible (see, Mental Hygiene Law § 33.13 [3]; People v Gissendanner, 48 NY2d 543, 550 ; People v Arnold, 177 AD2d 633, 634 ).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 ).

*624 The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J. P., Florio, H. Miller and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

2002: 12006: 12009: 120022026peak 2002 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. People v. Ramos780 N.E.2d 506 (N.Y. 2002)
  2. People v. Thompson34 A.D.3d 852 (2006)
  3. People v. Ramos65 A.D.3d 1264 (2009)

Most recent

  1. People v. Ramos65 A.D.3d 1264 (2009)
  2. People v. Thompson34 A.D.3d 852 (2006)
  3. People v. Ramos780 N.E.2d 506 (N.Y. 2002)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 5

DepthCaseCited by
People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80 (1982) 7,910
People v. Gissendanner, 399 N.E.2d 924 (N.Y. 1979) 553
People v. Samuels, 400 N.E.2d 1344 (N.Y. 1980) 292
People v. Kinchen, 457 N.E.2d 786 (N.Y. 1983) 243
People v. Arnold, 177 A.D.2d 633 (1991) 18

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list