Hyperlawhypertext legal database People v. Rice 199 A.D.2d 1054

← Cases

People v. Rice

199 A.D.2d 1054 Court N.Y. App. Div. Decision date 1993-12-29 Docket Appeal No. 2 English

Contents

Majority

p. 1054
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Lajuane B. Rice, Appellant.
(Appeal No. 2.)
[608 NYS2d 135]

Judgment unanimously reversed as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, plea vacated and matter remitted to Onondaga County Court for further proceedings on the indict

p. 1055
ment. Memorandum: Defendant contends that the suppression court erred in denying in part his motion to suppress his oral statements to the police. Great weight must be accorded a suppression court’s determination because of the court’s ability to observe and assess the credibility of a witness (see, People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759 , 761) and its findings should not be disturbed unless clearly erroneous (see, People v Arm-stead, 98 AD2d 726 ). We find no reason to disturb the suppression court’s finding that defendant’s statements to the police, while defendant was a patient in the intensive care unit at the hospital, were voluntarily made after he had been given his Miranda warnings and had waived them (see, People v Atkinson, 179 AD2d 1072 , lv denied 79 NY2d 997 ; People v Eastman, 114 AD2d 509 , lv denied 67 NY2d 651 ; People v Pearson, 106 AD2d 588 ).

Nevertheless, reversal is required because defendant’s plea was induced by the understanding that the sentence would be concurrent with the sentence imposed for defendant’s conviction in People v Rice (199 AD2d 1054 [decided herewith]), which is reversed (see, People v Fuggazzatto, 62 NY2d 862 , 863). Although defendant does not raise this issue on appeal, we reach it as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6]). (Appeal from Judgment of Onondaga County Court, Cunningham, J.—Attempted Murder, 2nd Degree.) Present—Pine, J. P., Balio, Lawton, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

Cases cited