People v Jackson

Annotate this Case
People v Jackson 2015 NY Slip Op 07412 Decided on October 9, 2015 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 October 9, 2015 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CENTRA, VALENTINO, WHALEN, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.
1088 KA 12-00912

[*1]THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

v

MARCUS JACKSON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.



LINDA M. CAMPBELL, SYRACUSE, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (JAMES P. MAXWELL OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.



Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (John J. Brunetti, A.J.), rendered March 19, 2012. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of failure to register as a sex offender.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously modified as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice by vacating the sentence of imprisonment and imposing a term of probation of three years, and as modified the judgment is affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of failure to register as a sex offender (Correction Law § 168-f [4]). We reject defendant's contention that the Miranda warnings given to him were defective and that Supreme Court therefore erred in refusing to suppress the statements he made to the police. "In determining whether police officers adequately conveyed the [Miranda] warnings, . . . [t]he inquiry is simply whether the warnings reasonably conve[y] to [a suspect] his rights as required by Miranda" (Florida v Powell, 559 US 50, 60 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Dunbar, 24 NY3d 304, 315, cert denied ___ US ___, 135 S Ct 2052). Here, we conclude that "the warnings given to defendant reasonably apprised him of his rights" (People v Bakerx, 114 AD3d 1244, 1247, lv denied 22 NY3d 1196). We agree with defendant that, under the circumstances of this case, the imposition of a sentence of imprisonment was unduly harsh and severe. We therefore modify the judgment as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice by vacating the sentence of imprisonment and imposing a term of probation of three years.

Entered: October 9, 2015

Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court