| People v Bridges |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 04437 [63 AD3d 752] |
| June 2, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Edward Bridges, Appellant. |
—[*1] Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Nicoletta J.Caferri, and Laura T. Ross of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Donnino,J.), rendered April 29, 2003, convicting him of murder in the second degree (two counts), upon ajury verdict, and imposing sentence. This appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing(Demakos, J.), of those branches of the defendant's omnibus motion which were to suppress hisstatements to law enforcement officials and identification testimony.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, under the circumstances, the police were not requiredto readminister Miranda warnings (see Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 [1966])prior to defendant's third interrogation (see People v Gonzalez, 5 AD3d 696, 697 [2004]; People vSantalis, 302 AD2d 614 [2003]; People v James, 271 AD2d 456 [2000]; People vHolland, 268 AD2d 536, 537 [2000]; see also People v Petronio, 34 AD3d 602, 604 [2006]). Further,since an inculpatory statement was legally obtained, the defendant's claim that his latervideotaped statement should have been suppressed as tainted is without merit.
While the People's failure to preserve the original printout of a photographic array gives riseto a presumption of suggestiveness (see People v Wedgeworth, 156 AD2d 529 [1989]),the People presented evidence sufficient to overcome that presumption (see People vCordilione, 159 AD2d 864 [1990]). [*2]The evidencepresented before the hearing court established that each computer printout of the photographicarray in question was virtually identical.
The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence with respect to hisconviction of depraved indifference murder is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11NY3d 484, 492-493 [2008]; People v Hines, 97 NY2d 56, 61 [2001]; People vGray, 86 NY2d 10, 19-21 [1995]; People v Connelly, 32 AD3d 863, 864 [2006]), and we decline toreview it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see People v Folkes, 43 AD3d 956, 956-957 [2007]; People vConnelly, 32 AD3d at 864).
The Supreme Court properly imposed consecutive sentences for the defendant's murderconvictions because the offenses were separate and distinct acts, notwithstanding that they aroseout of a single transaction (see People v Eddie, 87 NY2d 640, 643 [1996]; People vBrown, 80 NY2d 361, 364 [1992]; People v Boone, 30 AD3d 535, 536 [2006]; People v Maldonado, 5 AD3d505, 506-507 [2004]; People v Porter, 256 AD2d 363, 364 [1998]). Further, thedefendant's challenge to his sentence as unconstitutional under Apprendi v New Jersey(530 US 466 [2000]) is without merit (see People v Azaz, 41 AD3d 610, 610-611 [2007]; People v Bryant, 39 AD3d 768,769 [2007]; People v Pritchett, 29AD3d 828 [2006]). The Supreme Court did not engage in any fact-finding, but instead,implicitly made a legal determination based on facts already found by the jury (see People vAzaz, 41 AD3d at 610-611; People v Bryant, 39 AD3d at 769; People vPritchett, 29 AD3d at 829).
The defendant received the effective assistance of counsel, both at the hearing and at trial(see People v Caban, 5 NY3d143, 152 [2005]; People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]; People vHobot, 84 NY2d 1021, 1022 [1995]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]; see also People v Danielson, 9 NY3d342, 350 [2007]; People v Pacheco,50 AD3d 1063 [2008]).
The defendant's contention that the court failed to properly swear any of the prospectivejurors in accordance with CPL 270.15 (1) (a) is without merit (cf. People v Hoffler, 53 AD3d116, 121 [2008]), as is his contention that the court failed to properly swear in the seatedjurors in accordance with CPL 270.15 (2).
The defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review, and we decline toreview it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Spolzino, J.P., Covello, Balkin andBelen, JJ., concur.