| People v Sexton |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 04224 [73 AD3d 953] |
| May 11, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v TonySexton, Appellant. |
—[*1] Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (Gary S. Fidel and Donna Aldea ofcounsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hanophy,J.), rendered February 27, 2007, convicting him of murder in the second degree and tamperingwith physical evidence (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appealbrings up for review the denial (Hanophy, J.), after a hearing (Demakos, J.H.O.), of that branchof the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress his statements to law enforcementofficials.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
A reasonable person, innocent of any crime, would not have believed that he or she was incustody at the time the defendant made his initial statements (see People v Yukl, 25NY2d 585, 589 [1969]; Matter of VictorV., 30 AD3d 430, 431 [2006]; People v Parsad, 243 AD2d 510 [1997]). Whenthe defendant spontaneously stated that he killed his victim, he was given Mirandawarnings (see Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 [1966]), before being asked toprovide a written confession. Accordingly, the hearing court properly denied that branch of thedefendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress his statements (id.).
The Supreme Court did not err in allowing the defendant to represent himself during thetrial. The defendant's clear and unequivocal waiver of his right to counsel was knowingly,voluntarily, and intelligently made (seePeople v Providence, 2 NY3d 579 [2004]; People v Allison, 69 AD3d 740 [2010]; People v Prins,210 AD2d 355, 356 [1994]). The Supreme Court undertook a sufficiently searching inquiry ofthe defendant to be reasonably certain that the dangers and disadvantages of giving up thefundamental right to counsel were impressed upon him (see People v Providence, 2 NY3d 579 [2004]; People v Allison, 69 AD3d 740[2010]; People v Harris, 292 AD2d 633, 634 [2002]).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit. Dillon, J.P., Balkin, Lott and Sgroi,JJ., concur.