People v. Marvin
Opinion of the Court
Memorandum: In these consolidated appeals, defendant appeals from judgments convicting him upon his pleas of guilty of, inter alia, two counts of burglary in the second degree (Penal Law § 140.25 [2]). Contrary to the contention of defendant in each appeal, County Court properly refused to suppress his written statement to the police. The record of the suppression hearing supports the court’s determination that the waiver by defendant of his Miranda rights was knowing, voluntary and intelligent. Although defendant contends that he was intoxicated at the time he waived those rights, there is no indication in the record of the suppression hearing that he “ ‘was intoxicated to the degree of mania, or of being unable to understand the meaning of his statements’ ” (People v Schompert, 19 NY2d 300, 305 [1967], cert denied 389 US 874 [1967]; see People v Lake, 45 AD3d 1409, 1410 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 767 [2008]).
In each appeal, defendant failed to preserve for our review his further contentions that his plea was not knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered (see People v Johnson, 60 AD3d 1496, 1496 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 926 [2009]), and that the plea
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.