People v. Heidgen, 87 A.D.3d 1035 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Heidgen, 87 A.D.3d 1035 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
18 citation events (18 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (rule) People v. Boone (3×)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2025 · confidence medium
We therefore conclude that defendant's contention is not preserved for our review inasmuch as he " 'failed to raise that specific contention in his motion papers or at the [suppression] hearing' " ( People v Santos , 122 AD3d 1394, 1395 [4th Dept 2014]; see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Oliver , 87 AD3d 1035, 1037 [2d Dept 2011]).
examined Cited as authority (rule) People v. Salaman (4×)
N.Y. Crim. Ct. · 2025 · confidence medium
See CPL § 30.30(4)(a); People v Brown , 99 NY2d 488, 491-92 (2003); People v Oliver , 87 AD3d 1035, 1036 (2d Dept 2011); People v Newborn , 42 AD3d 506, 507 (2d Dept 2007); People v Inswood , 180 AD2d 649 (2d Dept 1992); People v Brown , 136 AD2d 715 (2d Dept 1988). (0 days charged, 88 days total).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Johnson
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
Moreover, the court’s credibility determinations following a suppression hearing “are entitled to great deference on appeal and will not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record” (People v Baliukonis, 35 AD3d 626, 627 [2006]; see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d at 413 ; People v Oliver, 87 AD3d 1035, 1036 [2011]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Wallace
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
The defendant’s contention that the evidence presented to the grand jury was legally insufficient is not reviewable on this appeal, since the defendant’s guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt (see CPL 210.30 [6]; People v Flowers, 95 AD3d 1233, 1234 [2012]; People v Oliver, 87 AD3d 1035, 1037 [2011]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Williams
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
Further, the statements made by the defendant in the booking room at police headquarters were spontaneous and not triggered by police questioning or other conduct which reasonably could have been expected to elicit a declaration from him (see People v Oliver, 87 AD3d 1035, 1036-1037 [2011]; People v Carlton, 85 AD3d 1196, 1197 [2011]; People v Fernandes, 62 AD3d 721 [2009]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Williams
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
Further, the statements made by the defendant in the booking room at police headquarters were spontaneous and not triggered by police questioning or other conduct which reasonably could have been expected to elicit a declaration from him (see People v Oliver, 87 AD3d 1035, 1036-1037 [2011]; People v Carlton, 85 AD3d 1196, 1197 [2011]; People v Fernandes, 62 AD3d 721 [2009]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Flowers
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
To the extent the defendant contends that, as a result, the evidence before the grand jury was legally insufficient to indict the defendant for crimes allegedly committed on January 17, 2008, the contention is not reviewable on this appeal, since the defendant’s guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt at trial (see CPL 210.30 [6]; People v Oliver, 87 AD3d 1035, 1037 [2011]; People v Bajana, 82 AD3d 1111, 1112 [2011]; People v Parker, 74 AD3d 1365, 1366 [2010]; People v Folkes, 43 AD3d 956, 957 [2007]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Flowers
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
To the extent the defendant contends that, as a result, the evidence before the grand jury was legally insufficient to indict the defendant for crimes allegedly committed on January 17, 2008, the contention is not reviewable on this appeal, since the defendant’s guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt at trial (see CPL 210.30 [6]; People v Oliver, 87 AD3d 1035, 1037 [2011]; People v Bajana, 82 AD3d 1111, 1112 [2011]; People v Parker, 74 AD3d 1365, 1366 [2010]; People v Folkes, 43 AD3d 956, 957 [2007]).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Fox
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
“The credibility determinations of the Supreme Court, which saw and heard the witnesses at the suppression hearing, are entitled to great weight on appeal, and will not be disturbed unless they are unsupported by the record” (P eople v Timmons, 54 AD3d 883, 885 [2008]; see People v Oliver, 87 AD3d 1035, 1036 [2011]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Martin Heidgen
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Sep 13, 2011.
87 A.D.3d 1035
Published

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, he failed to preserve for appellate review his claim that his Alford plea (see North Carolina v Alford, 400 US 25 [1970]) was invalid because it was involuntary and because the record did not contain sufficient proof of guilt, insofar as the defendant did not move to withdraw the plea (People v Bunn, 79 AD3d 1143 [2010]; People v Harris, 79 AD3d 1069 [2010]; People v Higgs, 266 AD2d 233 [1999]). In any event, the plea was voluntary, inasmuch as the County Court ensured that the defendant discussed the plea with his counsel, understood the ramifications of pleading guilty, and entered the plea for acceptable reasons (see People v Washington, 51 AD3d 1223, 1224 [2008]; People v Cash, 19 AD3d 934, 935 [2005]). Moreover, the County Court’s review of the grand jury minutes prior to the defendant’s plea established a basis in the record for finding strong circumstantial evidence of the defendant’s guilt (see People v Rock, 56 AD3d 1053 [2008]; People v Washington, 51 AD3d at 1224). Skelos, J.P, Dickerson, Austin and Cohen, JJ., concur.