History
  • No items yet
midpage
SANDS, MARK D., PEOPLE v
KA 08-00379
| N.Y. App. Div. | Feb 10, 2011
|
Check Treatment
Case Information

*1 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department 34

KA 08-00379

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, LINDLEY, GREEN, AND MARTOCHE, JJ. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER MARK D. SANDS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

JOSEPH T. JARZEMBEK, BUFFALO, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

JOSEPH V. CARDONE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ALBION (KATHERINE BOGAN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. Appeal from a judgment of the Orleans County Court (James P.

Punch, J.), rendered January 7, 2008. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of use of a child in a sexual performance, promoting an obscene sexual performance by a child, sexual abuse in the third degree, endangering the welfare of a child, unlawfully dealing with a child in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of, inter alia, use of a child in a sexual performance (Penal Law § 263.05). County Court properly refused to suppress the oral and written statements that defendant made to a police investigator. The record of the suppression hearing supports the court’s determination that defendant knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived his Miranda rights before he made those statements ( see People v Shaw , 66 AD3d 1417, lv denied 14 NY3d 773). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that his statements were elicited after he requested counsel, and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice ( see People v Rumrill , 40 AD3d 1273, 1274, lv denied 9 NY3d 926). “To the extent that defendant preserved for our review his contention that the conviction is not supported by legally sufficient evidence, we conclude that his contention lacks merit” ( People v Barnard , 295 AD2d 999, lv denied 98 NY2d 708). Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

Entered: February 10, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan

Clerk of the Court

Case Details

Case Name: SANDS, MARK D., PEOPLE v
Court Name: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Date Published: Feb 10, 2011
Docket Number: KA 08-00379
Court Abbreviation: N.Y. App. Div.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.