PEOPLE, res, v. AKWASIBA RADELLANT, def-ap

9812. PEOPLE, res, v. AKWASIBA RADELLANT, def-ap — Richard M. Greenberg, Office of The Appellate Defender, New York (Kerry S. Jamieson of counsel), and Linklaters, LLP, New York (Anna Greene of counsel), for ap — Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Ryan Gee of counsel), for res — Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert M. Stolz, J.), rendered March 3, 2010, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of marijuana in the second degree, endangering the welfare of a child and unlawfully dealing with a child in the first degree, and sentencing her to an aggregate term of 45 days, concurrent with 5 years' probation, unanimously affirmed.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

9812. PEOPLE, res, v. AKWASIBA RADELLANT, def-ap — Richard M. Greenberg, Office of The Appellate Defender, New York (Kerry S. Jamieson of counsel), and Linklaters, LLP, New York (Anna Greene of counsel), for ap — Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Ryan Gee of counsel), for res — Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert M. Stolz, J.), rendered March 3, 2010, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of marijuana in the second degree, endangering the welfare of a child and unlawfully dealing with a child in the first degree, and sentencing her to an aggregate term of 45 days, concurrent with 5 years’ probation, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress her statements. The record supports the court’s finding that the questioning by the detective was not the product of custodial interrogation, and thus did not require Miranda warnings. A reasonable innocent person in defendant’s position would not have thought that she was in custody (see People v. Yukl, 25 NY2d 585 [1969], cert denied 400 US 851 [1970]). Defendant returned to her apartment of her own volition, unaccompanied by the police. In the apartment, she was free to walk around, and the police did not restrain her in any way or do anything to convey that she was not free to leave; additionally, neither the questioning nor the atmosphere was coercive with regard to defendant (see e.g. People v. Miller, 100 AD3d 466 [1st Dept 2012]; People v. Dillhunt, 41 AD3d 216, 217 [1st Dept 2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 764 [2008]). The police activity at the apartment was likely to have conveyed the impression that an investigation was in progress, but there was no indication that the police had decided to arrest anyone but the codefendant, who was handcuffed. Defendant’s claim of inadequate CPL 710.30(1) (a) notice is waived, and is without merit in any event.

PEOPLE, res, v. AKWASIBA RADELLANT, def-ap

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal