| People v Jones |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 06482 [110 AD3d 1484] |
| October 4, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vGregory A. Jones, Appellant. |
—[*1] Lawrence Friedman, District Attorney, Batavia (William G. Zickl of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Genesee County (Robert C. Noonan,A.J.), rendered November 15, 2011. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a juryverdict, of predatory sexual assault against a child.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon a juryverdict, of predatory sexual assault against a child (Penal Law § 130.96). We rejectdefendant's contention that Supreme Court erred in refusing to suppress statements thathe made to the police on the ground that he was in custody at the time and had not beenadministered Miranda warnings. The court properly determined that "areasonable person in defendant's position, innocent of any crime, would not havebelieved that he or she was in custody, and thus Miranda warnings were notrequired" (People vLunderman, 19 AD3d 1067, 1068 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 830[2005]; see People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585, 589 [1969], cert denied 400US 851 [1970]). Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant preserved for our review hisfurther contention that his statements to the police were obtained in violation of his rightto counsel, we conclude that he thereafter waived that contention inasmuch as heconceded during the suppression hearing that the police ceased questioning himimmediately after he requested a lawyer (see generally People v Harris, 97 AD3d 1111, 1112 [2012],lv denied 19 NY3d 1026 [2012]).
Contrary to defendant's contention, the unsworn testimony of the seven-year-oldvictim was sufficiently corroborated by "evidence tending to establish the crime andconnecting defendant with its commission" (People v Groff, 71 NY2d 101, 104[1987]), including evidence of defendant's opportunity to commit the crime, thetestimony of other witnesses, and the victim's description of a pornographic video thatwas found on defendant's computer. "Strict corroboration of every material element ofthe charged crime is not required, as the purpose of corroboration is to ensure thetrustworthiness of the unsworn testimony rather than [to] prove the charge itself" (People v Kolupa, 59 AD3d1134, 1135 [2009], affd 13 NY3d 786 [2009] [internal quotation marksomitted]; see People vPetrie, 3 AD3d 665, 667 [2004]).
Finally, we reject defendant's contention that he was denied effective assistance ofcounsel. "[T]he evidence, the law and the circumstances of [this] case, viewed togetherand as of [*2]the time of representation, reveal thatmeaningful representation was provided" (People v Satterfield, 66 NY2d 796,798-799 [1985]; see generally People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 146-147 [1981]).Present—Smith, J.P., Fahey, Sconiers, Valentino and Whalen, JJ.