| People v Parker |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 03906 [50 AD3d 1607] |
| April 25, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael J.Parker, Appellant. |
—[*1] Michael C. Green, District Attorney, Rochester (Jessica Birkahn Housel of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Joseph D. Valentino, J.),rendered January 13, 2005. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, ofattempted sexual abuse in the first degree (two counts).
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of twocounts of attempted sexual abuse in the first degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 130.65[1]), defendant contends that Supreme Court erred in refusing to suppress the third of threestatements that he made to the police. We reject that contention. The record establishes that,shortly after defendant was taken into police custody, he was questioned by a police officer andmade admissions in response to those questions. Before he was transported to the police station,he reiterated those admissions to another officer. No Miranda warnings preceded thosestatements and, in the ensuing hour, defendant was transported to the police station.Miranda warnings were then administered, after which defendant gave the third statementthat he seeks to suppress. Upon a review of the factors set forth in People v Paulman (5 NY3d 122,130-131 [2005]), including the time between the Miranda violation and the thirdstatement, the change in location, the fact that "defendant exhibited a willingness to provide anexplanation of his conduct and [the fact that], once at the police [station], he never expressed anyreluctance to discuss the allegations" (id. at 131; see People v White, 10 NY3d 286 [2008]), we conclude that therewas "such a definite, pronounced break in the interrogation that the defendant may be said tohave returned, in effect, to the status of one who is not under the influence of questioning"(People v Chapple, 38 NY2d 112, 115 [1975]).
We have considered defendant's remaining contention and conclude that it is without merit.Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Smith, Fahey, Green and Pine, JJ.