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, etc., respondent, v. Jamel Robinson, appellant.
Submitted-January 8, 2010
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Feldman, J.), rendered May 2, 2005, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress his statement to law enforcement officials.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The hearing court properly declined to suppress the defendant's statement made to law enforcement officials. The statement was obtained in compliance with CPL 140.20(6) since the police immediately notified the defendant's foster mother, the person legally responsible for his care, of his arrest and place of detention. The mandates of the Family Court Act regarding parental notification do not apply here because the defendant was arrested as a “juvenile offender” (People v. Vargas, 169 A.D.2d 746, 747; see People v. Bonaparte, 130 A.D.2d 673; see also CPL 1.20[42] ). In any event, the police satisfied the requirements of the Family Court Act by immediately notifying the defendant's foster mother that the defendant was taken into custody (see Family Ct Act § 305.2[3] ). Suppression of the statement is not required simply because the foster mother declined to appear at the precinct and chose to designate someone in her place (see Matter of Anthony L., 262 A.D.2d 51; Matter of Jermaine W., 210 A.D.2d 236, 237; People v. Bonaparte, 130 A.D.2d at 674-675).
Since the defendant failed to demonstrate the necessity for the appointment of a DNA expert on his behalf pursuant to County Law § 722-c, the trial court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's request to appoint and retain such an expert (see Matter of Garfield M., 128 A.D.2d 876, 877; People v. Moore, 125 A.D.2d 501).
RIVERA, J.P., LEVENTHAL, HALL and SGROI, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
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: 2005-04517 (Ind.No. 3949 /04)
Decided: February 02, 2010
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)