| People v Pinto |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 01290 [103 AD3d 921] |
| February 27, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Elmer Pinto, Appellant. |
—[*1] Janet DiFiore, District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Raffaelina Gianfrancesco,Steven A. Bender, and Richard Longworth Hecht of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County(Cacace, J.), rendered September 20, 2011, convicting him of course of sexual conductagainst a child in the first degree and endangering the welfare of a child, upon a juryverdict, and sentencing him to a determinate term of imprisonment of 25 years plus aperiod of postrelease supervision of 15 years on the conviction of course of sexualconduct against a child in the first degree and a definite term of imprisonment of one yearon the conviction of endangering the welfare of a child, to run concurrently. The appealbrings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibusmotion which was to suppress his statements to law enforcement officials.
Ordered that the judgment is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest ofjustice, by reducing the sentence imposed on the defendant's conviction of course ofsexual conduct against a child in the first degree from a determinate term ofimprisonment of 25 years plus a period of postrelease supervision of 15 years to adeterminate term of imprisonment of 20 years plus a period of postrelease supervision of10 years; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the County Court properly denied that branchof his omnibus motion which was to suppress his statements to law enforcementofficials. A review of the totality of the circumstances (see People v Mateo, 2NY3d 383, 413 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946 [2004]; People vAnderson, 42 NY2d 35, 38 [1977]) demonstrates that the defendant's statements tothe police, which were given after he was informed of, and waived, his Mirandarights (see Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 [1966]), were voluntarily made(see CPL 60.45 [1]; People v Mateo, 2 NY3d at 414; People vHuntley, 15 NY2d 72 [1965]; People v Seabrooks, 82 AD3d 1130, 1130-1131 [2011]).Moreover, the defendant's contention that his confession to the police was involuntary onthe ground that it was induced by trickery is without merit, since there was no indication"that the deception was so fundamentally unfair as to deny due process or that a promiseor threat was made that could induce a false confession" (People v Tarsia, 50NY2d 1, 11 [1980] [citations omitted]; see People v Tankleff, 84 NY2d 992, 994[1994]; People v Jaeger, 96AD3d 1172, 1174 [2012]; People v Gordon, 74 AD3d 1090 [2010]; People v Green, 73 AD3d805 [2010]; People vSanabria, 52 AD3d 743, 744 [2008]; People v Ingram, 208 AD2d 561[1994]).
The sentence imposed was excessive to the extent indicated herein (see People v[*2]Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit. Mastro, J.P., Angiolillo,Sgroi and Miller, JJ., concur.