| People v Knudson |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 00688 [114 AD3d 703] |
| February 5, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v David C. Knudson, Appellant. |
—[*1] Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Cristin N. Connell andElizabeth E. Schlissel of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County(Donnino, J.), rendered January 26, 2012, convicting him of attempted murder in thesecond degree, attempted assault in the first degree, strangulation in the second degree,aggravated criminal contempt, and resisting arrest, upon his plea of guilty, and imposingsentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (St. George, J.), ofthat branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress his statements tolaw enforcement officials.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, there is no basis to disturb the hearing court'sdetermination that a statement he gave to a detective was voluntarily made after heknowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his Miranda rights (seeMiranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 [1966]). The evidence at the suppression hearingdoes not support the defendant's contention that he was " 'intoxicated to the degree ofmania, or of being unable to understand the meaning of his statements' " (People vShields, 295 AD2d 374, 374 [2002], quoting People v Schompert, 19 NY2d300, 305 [1967], cert denied 389 US 874 [1967]). The fact that the defendantwas moved from one floor of the police station to another and there was a 30-minutehiatus between the time the Miranda warnings were administered and the timethe defendant made the statement did not render the statement involuntary or thewarnings ineffective (see People v Tobias, 273 AD2d 925 [2000]; People vJames, 271 AD2d 456 [2000]).
Suppression of two statements the defendant made to a police officer beforeMiranda warnings were administered was properly denied, as those statementswere not the product of express questioning or its functional equivalent (see RhodeIsland v Innis, 446 US 291 [1980]; People v Latimer, 75 AD3d 562 [2010]).
The defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel (see People v Caban, 5 NY3d143, 152 [2005]). Skelos, J.P., Dickerson, Chambers and Miller, JJ., concur.