Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Karim MCCLAUGHLIN, Defendant–Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John Carter, J., at suppression hearing; Laurence Busching, J., at plea and sentencing), rendered November 5, 2021, convicting defendant of assault in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of five years, unanimously affirmed.
Defendant's voluntary waiver of his right to appeal (see People v. Thomas, 34 N.Y.3d 545, 122 N.Y.S.3d 226, 144 N.E.3d 970 [2019], cert denied 598 U.S. ––––, 140 S.Ct. 2634, 206 L.Ed.2d 512 [2020]) forecloses his arguments that the court erred in summarily denying his application for a Dunaway hearing and in denying suppression of one videotaped statement he made to a police detective and another he made to an assistant district attorney.
As alternative holdings, we find that the court properly denied the Dunaway application without a hearing because defendant's boilerplate allegations did not “raise a factual dispute on a material point which must be resolved before the court can decide the legal issue” (People v. Mendoza, 82 N.Y.2d 415, 426, 604 N.Y.S.2d 922, 624 N.E.2d 1017 [1993]), and that defendant's statement to the detective was properly admitted because defendant validly waived his Miranda rights before making the statement.
Finally, while we agree with defendant that his statement to the assistant district attorney should have been suppressed because he unequivocally invoked his right to counsel before making the statement (see People v. Porter, 9 N.Y.3d 966, 848 N.Y.S.2d 583, 878 N.E.2d 998 [2007]; People v. Roman, 175 A.D.3d 1198, 109 N.Y.S.3d 268 [1st Dept. 2019], lv denied 34 N.Y.3d 1081, 116 N.Y.S.3d 162, 139 N.E.3d 820 [2019]), that error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in light of the overwhelming evidence, including DNA evidence and defendant's incriminating first statement. There is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to defendant's decision to plead guilty (see People v. Robles, 42 N.Y.3d 694, ––– N.Y.S.3d ––––, ––– N.E.3d ––––, 2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 05819, *2 [2024]; People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787 [1975]).
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: 3761
Decided: February 25, 2025
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)