| People v Thornton |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 06285 [87 AD3d 663] |
| August 16, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v PaulThornton, Appellant. |
—[*1] William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Joan H. McCarthy of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Hayes, J.),rendered October 20, 2008, convicting him of driving while intoxicated and aggravatedunlicensed operation of a motor vehicle 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 his statements to law enforcement officials.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the evidence adduced at the suppression hearingestablished that his statements were made after he knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligentlywaived his Miranda rights (see Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 [1966]). "Adefendant who refuses to sign a written waiver of his rights, including a Miranda rightscard, may nevertheless orally waive his [or her] rights" (People v Saunders, 71 AD3d 1058, 1059 [2010]; see People vRobinson, 287 AD2d 398 [2001]). Here, although the defendant did not sign the waiver onhis Miranda rights card, he impliedly waived his rights by willingly answering policequestions after declining to sign the card (see People v Sirno, 76 NY2d 967, 968 [1990];People v Ridgeway, 101 AD2d 555, 562 [1984], affd 64 NY2d 952 [1985]).Further, the evidence at the suppression hearing did not establish that the defendant wasintoxicated to the degree of mania, or that he was unable to understand the meaning of hisstatements as a consequence of intoxication (see People v Hernandez, 67 AD3d 820 [2009]; People vShields, 295 AD2d 374 [2002]). Accordingly, the County Court correctly denied that branchof the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress his statements to law enforcementofficials.
The defendant challenges the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting the judgment ofconviction on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove that he was operating the subjectvehicle or that he was intoxicated. However, only his challenge to the prosecution's allegedfailure to establish that he was operating the vehicle is preserved for appellate review (see People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d484, 491-492 [2008]; People vBasagoitia, 55 AD3d 619, 620 [2008]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the lightmost favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we findthat it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (seePeople v Totman, 208 AD2d 970, 971 [1994]).[*2]
Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct anindependent 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 jury's opportunity to view the witnesses,hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383 [2004],cert denied 542 US 946 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]).Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against theweight of the evidence (see People vRomero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
Since the defendant failed to move to dismiss the indictment on the ground that he wasdeprived of his right to a speedy trial, he has waived that claim (see People v Lawrence,64 NY2d 200, 203 [1984]; People v Heman, 198 AD2d 434 [1993]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).Mastro, J.P., Chambers, Austin and Cohen, JJ., concur.