Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

The People of the State of New York v. Mark D. Sands

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


February 10, 2011

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,
v.
MARK D. SANDS,
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

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.

People v Sands

Decided on February 10, 2011

Appellate Division, Fourth Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. Decided on February 10, 2011

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, LINDLEY, GREEN, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

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

20110210

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.