People v. NealPeople v. Neal
Clark, J. Appeal from a judgment of thе County Court of Washington County (McKeighan, J.), rendered December 18, 2013, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of robbery in the secоnd degree.
In April 2013, defendant and several other individuals forcibly entered a motel room and stole drugs, electronics, jewelry and money from thе women and children who were staying there. A witness who was at the motel at the time of the robbery
In his omnibus motion, defendant sought preclusion of the witness identification and suppression of his written statement made to the State Police. After a combined Wade/Huntley hearing, County Court denied defendant‘s motion determining that the photo lineup was not unduly suggestive and that defendant‘s statement to the police was voluntary. Defendant thereafter pleaded guilty to robbery in the second degree in full satisfaction of all thе charges against him and was sentenced, as a second felony offender, to a prison term of seven years, to be followed by five yeаrs of postrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals and we affirm.
Initially, defendant‘s contention that the photographic idеntification procedure was unduly suggestive is unpreserved for our review since he failed to raise at the suppression hearing the specific grounds upon which he now challenges the procedure (see
Defendant next argues that the written statement that he
Here, State Police Investigator David Ferro testified at the Huntley hearing that when defendant arrived at a рolice station near New York City, he introduced himself to defendant, changed defendant‘s handcuffs, read defendant his Miranda rights from a preprinted cаrd and asked defendant whether he wished to speak to the police. According to Ferro, defendant acknowledged that he understood his Miranda rights and that he wished to speak to the police. Defendant was then placed in Ferro‘s patrol vehicle in the right rear seat, next to Fеrro, while another officer drove. Ferro testified that he had informed defendant that his arrest was about the robbery, to which defendant responded by nodding his head, and asked defendant “if he wanted to give his side of the story.” Defendant agreed to provide a statement to the police but indicated that he would like to “be out on bail.” Ferro informed defendant that he “would call the [District Attorney‘s] office to let them know [that] if he remained cooperative, [he would] have no problem making a call and asking for a bail recommendation.” Upon arriving in the interview room, Ferro had defendant read out loud and initial Miranda warnings printed on top of the form used to record defendant‘s written statement, which was
In view of the foregoing circumstances, we find that County Court correctly determined that the People established beyond a reasonаble doubt that defendant‘s written statement was given voluntarily and that defendant knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights. Indeed, there is no evidence in the record to suggest that the police acted in “an unduly coercive or threatening manner” or that their conduct undermined defendant‘s choice regarding “whether or not to provide a statement” (People v Pouliot, 64 AD3d at 1045-1046 [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see
Finally, we percеive no circumstances in this case that would warrant a reduction in the sentence as harsh or excessive. After taking into account defendant‘s prior criminal history and the violent nature of the crime, County Court was within its discretion in imposing a sentence only two years beyond the statutorily permitted minimum sentence (see People v Brabham, 126 AD3d 1040, 1044 [2015], lv denied 25 NY3d 1160 [2015]).
McCarthy, J.P., Egan Jr. and Lynch, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.