| People v Lopez |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 01857 [104 AD3d 876] |
| March 20, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Joshua Lopez, Appellant. |
—[*1] Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Glenn Green of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County(Hinrichs, J.), rendered October 27, 2009, convicting him of murder in the seconddegree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review thedenial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was tosuppress his statements to law enforcement officials.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The County Court properly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motionwhich was to suppress, as the fruit of an unlawful warrantless arrest inside a motel roomregistered to another individual, statements he made to, or in the presence of, lawenforcement officials (see Payton v New York, 445 US 573 [1980]). Thedefendant failed to meet his burden of demonstrating a legitimate expectation of privacyin the motel room (see People v Whitfield, 81 NY2d 904 [1993]; People v Lacey, 66 AD3d704, 705-706 [2009]). Moreover, the defendant consented to the entry of the policeinto the motel room when, after a detective knocked on the door and identified himself asa police officer, the defendant opened the door, stepped back, and allowed the detectiveto enter (see People vNielsen, 89 AD3d 1041, 1041-1042 [2011]).
The record supports the County Court's determination that a remark the defendantmade after he was placed in custody, but before he was give Miranda warnings(see Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 [1966]), was made voluntarily andspontaneously and was not the product of police interrogation or its functional equivalent(see People v Fernandes, 62AD3d 721 [2009]).
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support hisconviction of murder in the second degree is unpreserved for appellate review (seeCPL 470.05 [2]; People vHawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 491-492 [2008]). In any event, viewing the evidence inthe light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620,621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of thatcrime beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v Correa, 265 AD2d 338, 339[1999]). Additionally, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review ofthe weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9NY3d [*2]342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord greatdeference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observedemeanor (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewingthe record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of theevidence (see People vRomero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80[1982]). Skelos, J.P., Balkin, Austin and Sgroi, JJ., concur.