People v Busanet

Annotate this Case
People v Busanet 2010 NY Slip Op 09396 [79 AD3d 600] December 21, 2010 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, February 16, 2011

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v
Jaime Busanet, Appellant.

—[*1] Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Bruce D. Austern of counsel), for appellant. Jaime Busanet, appellant pro se. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Brian E. Rodkey of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Renee A. White, J., at hearing; Gregory Carro, J., at plea and sentence), rendered May 27, 2009, as amended June 12, 2009, convicting defendant of attempted robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to a term of 12 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress defendant's statements. Initially, we find no basis for disturbing the court's credibility determinations. The statements made by defendant to the police while defendant was incarcerated on an unrelated matter did not require Miranda warnings. The evidence adduced at the hearing established that there were no restrictions on defendant's freedom over and above ordinary prison confinement (see People v Alls, 83 NY2d 94 [1993], cert denied 511 US 1090 [1994]; People v Georgison, 299 AD2d 176 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 614 [2003]). Defendant signed a written consent to be interviewed by police, and then was simply brought to an interview room. The subsequent destruction of the consent form does not warrant a different result. [*2]

Defendant's pro se challenge to one of the predicate convictions used to enhance his sentence is procedurally barred (see CPL 400.15 [8]), and in any event is without merit. Concur—Tom, J.P., Friedman, Catterson, Renwick and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.