| People v Peay |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 06858 [77 AD3d 1309] |
| October 1, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Christopher Peay,Appellant. |
—[*1] Christopher Peay, defendant-appellant pro se. R. Michael Tantillo, District Attorney, Canandaigua (Catherine A. Walsh of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Ontario County Court (Frederick G. Reed, J.), renderedSeptember 12, 2007. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in thesecond degree (two counts).
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of twocounts of robbery in the second degree (Penal Law § 160.10 [1], [2] [b]). We reject thecontention of defendant that the written and oral statements he made to the police while in custody andafter waiving his Miranda rights were coerced and that County Court therefore erred in refusingto suppress them. "The voluntariness of a confession is to be determined by examining the totality of thecircumstances surrounding the confession" (People v Coggins, 234 AD2d 469, 470 [1996];see People v Scott, 212 AD2d 1047 [1995], affd 86 NY2d 864 [1995]). Here, therecord of the suppression hearing supports the court's determination that the statements were notcoerced, i.e., defendant received no promises in exchange for making the statements nor was hethreatened in any way, and the court's determination is entitled to great deference (see generallyPeople v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]). Contrary to the further contention of defendant inhis main and pro se supplemental briefs, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. We haveconsidered the remaining contention in defendant's pro se supplemental brief and conclude that it iswithout merit. Present—Smith, J.P., Fahey, Sconiers, Pine and Gorski, JJ.