green
Positive treatment
Issue: knowing waiverNY ↗
Issue: valid and knowing waiverNY ↗
Issue: contemporaneous limiting instructionNY ↗
Issue: gave instructionNY ↗
39.3 score
G Cite
Treatment trajectory · 2013 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2013
2019
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 37 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. McMillan
Not only did County Court characterize defendant's crimes as "despicable conduct" that has "haunt[ed] the victim," but defendant was a second violent felony offender who offered no remorse, attempted to blame the victim and referred to his crimes as "bull****" ( see People v Mattis , 108 AD3d 872, 876 [3d Dept 2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 957 [2013]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Garrand
"Determining whether a statement is voluntary is a factual issue governed by the totality of the circumstances[,] and the credibility assessments of the suppression court in making that determination are entitled to deference" ( People v Mattis , 108 AD3d 872, 874 [2013] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted], lv denied 22 NY3d 957 [2013]; accord People v Steigler , 152 AD3d at 1083 ).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Bush
In any event, the cursory claims presented in the email fail to show that a substantial right of defendant was affected ( see People v Hartle , 159 AD3d 1149 , 1154-1155 [2018], lv denied 31 NY3d 1082 [2018]; People v Mattis , 108 AD3d 872, 876 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 955 [2013]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. McCoy
Although it would have been reasonable for County Court to employ a Sandoval compromise by precluding inquiry into the facts underlying the convictions, were this issue properly before us, we would find no abuse of discretion in County Court's ruling ( see People v Mattis , 108 AD3d 872, 875 [2013], lvs denied 22 NY3d 957 [2013]; People v Muniz , 93 AD3d 871, 875 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 965 [2012]; People v Mitchell , 57 AD3d 1308, 1311-1312 [2008]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Lowndes
The People must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, the voluntariness of statements given to the police ( see People v Steigler , 152 AD3d 1083, 1083 [2017], lv denied 30 NY3d 983 [2017]; People v Mattis , 108 AD3d 872, 874 [2013], lvs denied 22 NY3d 957 [2013]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Hartle
In our view — and notwithstanding the procedural irregularities attendant to defendant's motion — there is no evidence that the jury's deliberative process was affected by improper influence or that the alleged conversations were so significantly prejudicial as to require a new trial, and, therefore, County Court acted within its discretion in denying the motion ( see People v Kenyon , 108 AD3d 933, 941 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1075 [2013]; People v Mattis , 108 AD3d 872, 876 [2013], lvs denied 22 NY3d 957 [2013]; People v Artis , 90 AD3d at 1242 ).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Robinson
The voluntariness of a statement provided to law enforcement following administration of defendant’s Miranda warnings is determined by examining the totality of the circumstances under which it was obtained (see People v Steigler, 152 AD3d 1083, 1083 [2017], lv denied 30 NY3d 983 [2017]; People v Sabines, 121 AD3d 1409 , 1411 [2014], lv denied 25 NY3d 1171 [2015]), and deference is given to the credibility determinations and factual findings made by the suppression court (see People v Neal, 133 AD3d 920 , 922 [2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 1110 [2016]; People v Mattis, 108 AD3d 872, 874 [2013], l…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Steigler
“Determining whether a statement is voluntary is a factual issue governed by the totality of the circumstances and the credibility assessments of the suppression court in making that determination are entitled to deference” (People v Mattis, 108 AD3d 872, 874 [2013] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted], lv denied 22 NY3d 957 [2013]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Vazquez
“Determining whether a statement is voluntary is a factual issue governed by the totality of the circumstances [,] and the credibility assessments of the suppression court in making that determination are entitled to deference” (People v Mattis, 108 AD3d 872, 874 [2013] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations *1270 omitted], lv denied 22 NY3d 957 [2013]; see People v Hunter, 270 AD2d 712, 713 [2000]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Carter
County Court credited the officers’ testimony and, deferring to those credibility determinations, there is ample proof to support the court’s finding that defendant’s statement was voluntary in that he was fully informed of, understood and waived his Miranda rights before any questioning commenced (see People v Nadal, 131 AD3d 729, 730 [2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 1041 [2015]; People v Mattis, 108 AD3d 872, 874 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 957 [2013]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Cruz
It is the People’s burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that statements were voluntary (see People v Mattis, 108 AD3d 872, 874 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 957 [2013]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Ganz
While none of the witnesses could recall reviewing any particular application by defendant, because the witnesses “indicated sufficient knowledge of the record-keeping practices and procedures of the [school] ... it was not necessary that [they] have personal knowledge regarding [a] particular record” (People v Mattis, 108 AD3d 872, 876 [2013]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Nadal
Defendant initially asserts that County Court erred in declin *730 ing to suppress his oral statements to police, as the People failed to meet their burden of “proving the voluntariness of defendant’s statements beyond a reasonable doubt, including that any custodial interrogation was preceded by the administration and defendant’s knowing waiver of his Miranda rights” (People v Mattis, 108 AD3d 872, 874 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 957 [2013] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see People v Rankin, 127 AD3d 1335, 1339 [2015]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Vanguilder
Defendant’s objection that this testimony was outside the scope of his cross-examination of the Cl did not preserve his Molineux and relevancy arguments for our review (see People v Mattis, 108 AD3d 872, 875 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 957 [2013]; see generally People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 20-21 [1995]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Winchell
Moreover, “[considering the brutal nature of the crime, together with defendant’s criminal record and apparent lack of remorse, we find neither an abuse of discretion nor extraordinary circumstances warranting a reduction of the sentence” (People v Mattis, 108 AD3d 872, 876 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 957 [2013]; see People v Shoemaker, 119 AD3d 1073 , 1077 [2014], lv denied 25 NY3d 992 [2015]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Rizvi
The People bore the burden of demonstrating beyond a reasonable doubt “that any custodial interrogation was preceded by the administration and defendant’s knowing waiver of his Miranda rights” (People v Mattis, 108 AD3d 872, 874 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 957 [2013] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Fisher
Determining whether a statement is voluntary is a factual issue governed by the totality of the circumstances [and] [t]he credibility assessments of the suppression court in making that determination are entitled to deference” (People v Mattis, 108 AD3d 872, 874 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 957 [2013] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Perkins
The question of whether a statement is voluntary is a factual issue to be determined based on the totality of the circumstances, with deference accorded to the suppression court’s factual findings and credibility determinations (see People v Mattis, 108 AD3d 872, 874 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 957 [2013]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Shoemaker
Absent any apparent abuse of discretion or extraordinary circumstance, we decline to disturb the sentence (see People v Mattis, 108 AD3d 872, 876 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 957 [2013]; People v Callicut, 101 AD3d 1256 , 1265 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 1096 [2013]; People v Hansen, 290 AD2d 47, 57 [2002], affd 99 NY2d 339 [2003]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Shoemaker
Absent any apparent abuse of discretion or extraordinary circumstance, we decline to disturb the sentence (see People v Mattis, 108 AD3d 872, 876 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 957 [2013]; People v Callicut, 101 AD3d 1256 , 1265 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 1096 [2013]; People v Hansen, 290 AD2d 47, 57 [2002], affd 99 NY2d 339 [2003]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
PeoplevShoemaker
Absent any apparent -6- 104537 abuse of discretion or extraordinary circumstance, we decline to disturb the sentence (see People v Mattis, 108 AD3d 872, 876 [2013], lvs denied 22 NY3d 957 [2013]; People v Callicut, 101 AD3d 1256 , 1265 [2012], lvs denied 20 NY3d 1096 , 1097 [2013]; People v Hansen, 290 AD2d 47, 57 [2002], affd 99 NY2d 339 [2003]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Lloyd
Based on this testimony, the People established that defendant’s statements were voluntarily made after a valid and knowing waiver of his Miranda rights (see People v Kidd, 112 AD3d 994, 996-997 [2013]; People v Mattis, 108 AD3d 872, 874 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 957 [2013]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Lloyd
Based on this testimony, the People established that defendant’s statements were voluntarily made after a valid and knowing waiver of his Miranda rights (see People v Kidd, 112 AD3d 994, 996-997 [2013]; People v Mattis, 108 AD3d 872, 874 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 957 [2013]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Rankin
Mattis was convicted of, among other things, murder in the first degree and conspiracy in the second degree and this Court affirmed his conviction (People v Mattis, 108 AD3d 872, 876 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 957 [2013]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Rankin
Mattis was convicted of, among other things, murder in the first degree and conspiracy in the second degree and this Court affirmed his conviction (People v Mattis, 108 AD3d 872, 876 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 957 [2013]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Whitted
Thus, when we consider the totality of the circumstances (see People v Flemming, 101 AD3d 1483 , 1484 [2012], lv denied 21 NY3d 942 [2013]; People v Heesh, 94 AD3d 1159, 1160 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 961 [2012]) and accord due deference to County Court’s credibility determinations, we find that the People established beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant voluntarily waived his constitutional rights (see People v Dale, 115 AD3d at 1004 ; People v Kidd, 112 AD3d 994, 996-997 [2013]; People v Mattis, 108 AD3d 872, 874 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 957 [2013]; People v Baugh, 101 AD3d at 1360-13…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Whitted
Thus, when we consider the totality of the circumstances (see People v Flemming, 101 AD3d 1483 , 1484 [2012], lv denied 21 NY3d 942 [2013]; People v Heesh, 94 AD3d 1159, 1160 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 961 [2012]) and accord due deference to County Court’s credibility determinations, we find that the People established beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant voluntarily waived his constitutional rights (see People v Dale, 115 AD3d at 1004 ; People v Kidd, 112 AD3d 994, 996-997 [2013]; People v Mattis, 108 AD3d 872, 874 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 957 [2013]; People v Baugh, 101 AD3d at 1360-13…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Kidd
(2×)
Next, the suppression testimony amply supports County Court’s finding, after a Huntley hearing, that the People proved beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant’s statements to police were voluntarily made after a valid and knowing waiver of his Miranda rights (see People v Mattis, 108 AD3d 872, 874 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 957 [Oct. 7, 2013]; People v Culver, 69 AD3d 976, 976-977 [2010]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Thomas
The testimony of the officer who took the statement, together with the videotape of the interrogation, are sufficient to meet the People’s burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant’s statement was voluntary (see People v Mattis, 108 AD3d 872, 874 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 957 [Oct. 7, 2013]) and that her will was not overborne (see People v Pouliot, 64 AD3d 1043, 1045-1046 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 838 [2009]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Kidd
(2×)
Next, the suppression testimony amply supports County Court’s finding, after a Huntley hearing, that the People proved beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant’s statements to police were voluntarily made after a valid and knowing waiver of his Miranda rights (see People v Mattis, 108 AD3d 872, 874 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 957 [Oct. 7, 2013]; People v Culver, 69 AD3d 976, 976-977 [2010]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Thomas
The testimony of the officer who took the statement, together with the videotape of the interrogation, are sufficient to meet the People’s burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant’s statement was voluntary (see People v Mattis, 108 AD3d 872, 874 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 957 [Oct. 7, 2013]) and that her will was not overborne (see People v Pouliot, 64 AD3d 1043, 1045-1046 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 838 [2009]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Rudolph
A "limited seizure of [a] vehicle's occupant must be reasonably related in scope, including its length, to the circumstances which justified the detention in the first instance, unless circumstances arise which furnish the police with a founded suspicion that criminal activity is afoot" ( People v Kelly , 37 AD3d 866, 867 [2007] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted], lv denied 8 NY3d 986 [2007]; see People v Banks , 148 AD3d at 1360 ). "[G]reat weight is accorded the trial court's determination at a suppression hearing and, absent a basis in the record for finding that the court's re…
discussed
Cited "see"
PeoplevRodwell
"Whether a statement is voluntary is a factual question to be determined from the totality of the circumstances" (People v Heesh, 94 AD3d 1159, 1160 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 961 [2012] [citations omitted]; see People v Mattis, 108 AD3d 872, 874 [2013], lvs denied 22 NY3d 957 [2013]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Rodwell
“Whether a statement is voluntary is a factual question to be determined from the totality of the circumstances” (People v Heesh, 94 AD3d 1159, 1160 [2012], Iv denied 19 NY3d 961 [2012] [citations omitted]; see People v Mattis, 108 AD3d 872, 874 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 957 [2013]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Rodwell
“Whether a statement is voluntary is a factual question to be determined from the totality of the circumstances” (People v Heesh, 94 AD3d 1159, 1160 [2012], Iv denied 19 NY3d 961 [2012] [citations omitted]; see People v Mattis, 108 AD3d 872, 874 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 957 [2013]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Smith
Moreover, contrary to defendant’s contention, the narrow exception to the preservation rule does not apply here “as defendant did not make any statements during the plea allocution that negated a material element of the crime or otherwise cast doubt upon [his] guilt” (People v Ladieu, 105 AD3d 1265, 1266 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1017 [2013]; see People v Teele, 92 AD3d 972, 972 [2012]), and defendant “was not required to recite the elements of his crime or engage in a factual exposition, as his unequivocal affirmative responses to County Court’s questions were sufficient to establis…
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Smith
Moreover, contrary to defendant’s contention, the narrow exception to the preservation rule does not apply here “as defendant did not make any statements during the plea allocution that negated a material element of the crime or otherwise cast doubt upon [his] guilt” (People v Ladieu, 105 AD3d 1265, 1266 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1017 [2013]; see People v Teele, 92 AD3d 972, 972 [2012]), and defendant “was not required to recite the elements of his crime or engage in a factual exposition, as his unequivocal affirmative responses to County Court’s questions were sufficient to establis…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Reza Sanat
v.
Reza Sanat
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jul 11, 2013.
McCarthy.
Cited by 2 opinions | Published
— McCarthy, J.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Williams, J.), rendered May 18, 2011, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of burglary in the third degree.
In satisfaction of a multicount indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to burglary in the third degree and, thereafter, was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement. This appeal ensued.
As the record does not indicate that defendant moved to withdraw his plea or vacate the judgment of conviction, his challenge to the voluntariness and factual sufficiency of his plea are not preserved for our review (see People v Morgan, 84 AD3d 1594, 1594 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 819 [2011]; People v Smith, 57 AD3d 1237, 1237 [2008]). Furthermore, nothing in the record casts significant doubt on defendant’s guilt or negates an essential element of the crime so as to warrant the application of the narrow exception to the preservation rule (see People v Thompson, 70 AD3d 1123, 1123 [2010]), and defendant “was not required to recite the elements of his crime or engage in a factual exposition, as his unequivocal affirmative responses to County Court’s questions were sufficient to establish the elements of the crime charged” (People v Board, 75 AD3d 833, 834 [2010]).
Peters, P.J., Lahtinen and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.