| People v Walker |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 03884 [84 AD3d 842] |
| May 3, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Thomas Walker, Appellant. |
—[*1] Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Edward A. Bannan of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Hudson, J.),rendered June 18, 2009, convicting him of burglary in the first degree (10 counts), assault in thefirst degree, and attempted burglary in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposingsentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of thedefendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress statements he made to law enforcementofficials.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People vContes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish thedefendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conductan independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342[2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the factfinder's opportunity to view thewitnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383,410 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490[1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not againstthe weight of the evidence (see People vRomero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
The defendant contends that a telex sent by the Suffolk County police to other jurisdictionsidentifying the defendant as a person wanted by the police for questioning was the equivalent ofan arrest warrant which caused his right to counsel to attach, and therefore statements he madeafter the telex was sent should have been suppressed (see People v Samuels, 49 NY2d218, 221 [1980]). This contention is without merit, as there was no judicial involvement in theissuance of the telex. Indeed, there was no significant judicial involvement in the case until theissuance of the actual arrest warrant, which occurred after the defendant made his statements tothe police (see People v Fisher, 121 AD2d 655, 656 [1986]; People v Estrada,109 AD2d 977, 979 [1985]; People v Davis, 94 AD2d 900 [1983]).
The County Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in admitting evidence of anuncharged crime to complete the narrative of the current crime. Any prejudice related to theintroduction of the uncharged crime evidence was minimized by the County Court's limitinginstruction. In any event, any [*2]error in the admission of suchevidence was harmless, as there was overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt and nosignificant probability that the alleged error contributed to his conviction (see People v Helenese, 75 AD3d653, 654 [2010]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).
The defendant's remaining contention in point four of his brief regarding the admission ofcertain photographs is without merit. Mastro, J.P., Balkin, Leventhal and Belen, JJ., concur.