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. DARIANA VARGAS, DEFENDANT–APPELLANT.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting her upon her plea of guilty of robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15[3] ). We reject defendant's contention that the oral and written statements she made to police investigators should have been suppressed because she was in custody at the time those statements were made. County Court's determination after a Huntley hearing that defendant was not in custody at that time will not be disturbed unless it is clearly erroneous (see People v. Schroo, 87 AD3d 1287, 1288, lv denied 19 NY3d 977). Here, the court's decision to credit the testimony of the police investigator over that of defendant is entitled to deference (see People v. Shaw, 66 AD3d 1417, 1417–1418, lv denied 14 NY3d 773), and the record supports the court's conclusion that defendant was not in custody because a reasonable person in defendant's position, innocent of any crime, would have believed that he or she was free to leave (see People v. Yukl, 25 N.Y.2d 585, 589, cert denied 400 U.S. 851; see generally People v. Morales, 281 A.D.2d 182, 182, lv denied 96 N.Y.2d 922). Defendant voluntarily accompanied the police investigators to their unmarked vehicle that was parked in front of her home and voluntarily answered questions (see Yukl, 25 N.Y.2d at 591). Defendant was informed that she was free to leave, the vehicle doors were unlocked and could be opened by her at any time, the entire interview lasted slightly under an hour, she was not handcuffed, and she never asked to leave (see People v. Weakfall, 108 AD3d 1115, 1115–1116; see also People v. Wilbert, 192 A.D.2d 1109, 1109–1110, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 1082; People v. Anderson, 145 A.D.2d 939, 939–940, lv denied 73 N.Y.2d 974).
We reject defendant's further contention that she was denied effective assistance of counsel at the Huntley hearing. Defendant was provided meaningful representation inasmuch as the facts and circumstances relevant to the determination of whether defendant was in custody when she was questioned were brought to the court's attention (see People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 150; see generally People
v Centano, 76 N.Y.2d 837, 838; People v. Johnson, 91 A.D.2d 327, 330, affd 61 N.Y.2d 932; People v. Arcese, 148 A.D.2d 460, 461, lv denied 74 N.Y.2d 661), and mere speculation that a more vigorous cross-examination might have undermined the credibility of the People's witness is insufficient to establish that defense counsel was ineffective (see People v. Wittman, 103 AD3d 1206, 1207, lv denied 21 NY3d 915).
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court
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: KA 09–01313
Decided: September 27, 2013
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth 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)