| People v Latouche |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 02810 [61 AD3d 702] |
| April 7, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Valery Latouche, Appellant. |
—[*1] Thomas P. Zugibe, District Attorney, New City, N.Y. (Itamar J. Yeger and Elana L. Yeger ofcounsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Rockland County (Kelly, J.),rendered November 15, 2005, convicting him of murder in the second degree, robbery in the firstdegree, robbery in the second degree, attempted robbery in the first degree (two counts),attempted robbery in the second degree (two counts), criminal possession of a weapon in thesecond degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, andimposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch ofthe defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress his statements to law enforcementofficials.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
On appeal, the defendant challenges, inter alia, the probable cause for his arrest, and thevoluntariness of his statements to law enforcement officials. Any illegality in the defendant'sarrest was sufficiently attenuated from his statements to law enforcement officials (seePeople v Rogers, 52 NY2d 527, 532-533 [1981], cert denied 454 US 898 [1981]; People v Patterson, 19 AD3d 513,513-514 [2005]; People v Wilkinson,5 AD3d 512, 514 [2004]). Moreover, the hearing court properly determined that thedefendant's statements, given after he was informed of, and waived, his Miranda rights(see Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 [1966]), were voluntarily made (see People v Osorio, 49 AD3d562 [2008]). The defendant failed to [*2]establish that inmaking his statements to the police, his " 'will [was] overborne and his capacity forself-determination critically impaired' " (People v White, 10 NY3d 286, 292 [2008], quoting People vAnderson, 42 NY2d 35, 41 [1977]). Accordingly, that branch of the defendant's omnibusmotion which was to suppress his statements to law enforcement officials was properly denied.
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support hisconvictions is without merit. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution(see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient toestablish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling ourresponsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the factfinder's opportunity toview the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2NY3d 383, 410 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guiltwas not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).Skelos, J.P., Fisher, Florio and Leventhal, JJ., concur.