| People v Richardson |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 04221 [118 AD3d 821] |
| June 11, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Fred Richardson, Appellant. |
Gary M. Gash, White Plains, N.Y. (Neal D. Futerfas of counsel), for appellant, andappellant pro se.
Janet DiFiore, District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Maria I. Wager, JenniferSpencer, and Richard Longworth Hecht of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County(Zambelli, J.), rendered October 2, 2007, convicting him of murder in the second degree,manslaughter in the first degree, robbery in the first degree (two counts), and criminalpossession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Adler, J.), of that branch ofthe defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress his statement to law enforcementofficials.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that his statement to law enforcement officials should havebeen suppressed because it was taken in violation of his right to counsel. "The credibilitydeterminations of a hearing court are entitled to great deference on appeal, and will notbe disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record" (People v Martinez, 58 AD3d870, 870-871 [2009]; People v Louis, 99 AD3d 725, 726 [2012]). Here, thehearing court credited the testimony of the police witnesses that the defendant wasadvised of his Miranda rights (see Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436[1966]), and that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived thoserights, including the right to counsel, and there is no basis in the record to disturb thehearing court's credibility determinations (see People v Louis, 99 AD3d at 726).Moreover, when the defendant gave his statement, he was in custody in connection withthe instant matter, which was unrelated to charges pending in connection with anothermatter with respect to which he was represented. Therefore, the defendant could validlywaive his right to counsel (seePeople v Lopez, 16 NY3d 375, 384 [2011]; People v Bing, 76 NY2d331 [1990]).
In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of theevidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we neverthelessaccord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony,and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004]; Peoplev Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we aresatisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d633 [2006]).
[*2] Contrary to thedefendant's contention, he was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel underthe New York Constitution because, viewing defense counsel's performance in totality,counsel provided meaningful representation (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d708, 712 [1998]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]). Moreover, thedefendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel under the United StatesConstitution (see Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668 [1984]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80[1982]).
There is no merit to the defendant's contentions, raised in point II of his main brief,that he was deprived of a fair hearing and trial, due process, and the right to present adefense by the County Court's limitation of his cross-examination of certain prosecutionwitnesses.
The defendant's remaining contentions, including the contentions raised in his pro sesupplemental brief, are unpreserved for appellate review, and we decline to reach them inthe exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Skelos, J.P., Dillon, Roman andMaltese, JJ., concur.