| People v Russell |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 00413 [58 AD3d 759] |
| January 20, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Efrem Z. Russell, Appellant. |
—[*1] Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Judith R. Sternberg and Sarah Spatt ofcounsel), for respondent.
Appeals by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Jaeger,J.), rendered May 23, 2007, convicting him of burglary in the first degree (four counts), robberyin the first degree (two counts), robbery in the second degree (three counts), attempted robberyin the first degree, and attempted robbery in the second degree under indictment No. 1019/06,upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence, and (2) a judgment of the same court alsorendered May 23, 2007, convicting him of burglary in the first degree, robbery in the firstdegree, and robbery in the second degree under indictment No. 2458/06, upon his plea of guilty,and imposing sentence. The appeals bring up for review the denial, after a hearing (Calabrese,J.), of those branches of the defendant's omnibus motion which were to suppress physicalevidence and his statements to law enforcement officials.
Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
The hearing court properly denied those branches of the defendant's omnibus motion whichwere to suppress identification testimony and his post-arrest statements to law enforcementofficials, as the evidence presented by the People demonstrated that the police had probablecause to arrest the defendant (see CPL 140.10 [1] [b]; People v Bigelow, 66NY2d 417, 423 [1985]; People v Tin P.Chu, 8 AD3d 399 [2004]). Moreover, the defendant failed to establish that in makinghis statements to the police, his "will was overborne and his capacity for self-determinationcritically impaired" (People v White,10 NY3d 286, 292 [2008], [*2]quoting People vAnderson, 42 NY2d 35, 41 [1977]). Additionally, contrary to the defendant's contentions,the photo array and lineup viewed by the complainants were not unduly suggestive, as theindividuals viewed were sufficiently similar in appearance to the defendant (see People vChipp, 75 NY2d 327, 336 [1990]; People v Miller, 33 AD3d 728 [2006]).
By pleading guilty, the defendant forfeited appellate review of his claims of ineffectiveassistance of counsel which did not directly involve the plea bargaining process (see People v Silent, 37 AD3d 625[2007]).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.P., Santucci, Carni andDickerson, JJ., concur.