| People v Hackett |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 02372 [49 AD3d 1285] |
| March 14, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Mikel D.Hackett, Appellant. |
—[*1] William J. Fitzpatrick, District Attorney, Syracuse (James P. Maxwell of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Onondaga County Court (Anthony F. Aloi, J.), renderedNovember 19, 2004. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of robbery in thefirst degree (two counts) and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of two countsof robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15 [2], [4]) and one count of criminalpossession of a weapon in the third degree (§ 265.02 [1]), defendant contends that CountyCourt erred in refusing to suppress his statement to the police on the ground that it was theproduct of an illegal search. We reject that contention. The People presented evidence at thesuppression hearing establishing that defendant's mother gave the police her permission to enterthe premises where she resided, in order to search for defendant (see People v Santiago, 41 AD3d1172, 1173-1174 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 964 [2007]), and the court was entitledto resolve credibility issues in favor of the People (see generally People v Prochilo, 41NY2d 759, 761 [1977]). Contrary to the further contention of defendant, the record supports thecourt's determination that he voluntarily waived his Miranda rights when he signed awaiver form in the presence of two police officers (see People v Youngblood, 294 AD2d954, 955 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 704 [2002]). Finally, we reject defendant'scontention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, both with respect to thecredibility of the People's witnesses and the elements of the crimes (see generally People vBleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). At trial, the victim and two other eyewitnessesidentified defendant as the victim's assailant, and defendant's statement to the police includeddetails that would not have been known by an individual who was not involved in the robbery.Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Lunn, Fahey, Peradotto and Pine, JJ.