| People v Higgins |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 09150 [123 AD3d 1143] |
| December 31, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Javaughn Higgins, Appellant. |
Norman A. Olch, New York, N.Y., for appellant.
Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, KeithDolan, and Claibourne Henry of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (DelGuidice, J.), rendered September 25, 2006, convicting him of robbery in the first degreeand robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appealbrings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Feldman, J.), of that branch of thedefendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress his statements to law enforcementofficials.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the statements he made to law enforcement officialsshould have been suppressed. However, the specific argument asserted by the defendanton appeal to support this contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL470.05 [2]; People vFowler, 101 AD3d 898, 898 [2012]; People v Philips, 30 AD3d 620, 620 [2006]). In any event,the defendant's contention is without merit. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properlydenied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress hisstatements to law enforcement officials.
The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence corroborating hisconfession, as required by CPL 60.50, is unpreserved for appellate review (seeCPL 470.05 [2]; People vHawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492 [2008]; People v Bell, 86 AD3d 618, 618 [2011]). In any event, thedefendant's confession was sufficiently corroborated by independent evidence (seeCPL 60.50; People v Booden, 69 NY2d 185, 187-188 [1987]). Thedefendant's related contention that the trial court's failure to charge the jury in accordancewith CPL 60.50 deprived him of a fair trial is unpreserved for appellate review, since thedefendant never requested such a charge (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People vBell, 86 AD3d at 618; People v Monroe, 49 AD3d 900, 901 [2008]). In any event,the contention is without merit. CPL 60.50 provides that a person may not be convictedof any offense solely upon his or her confession or admission without additional proofthat the offense charged has been committed. Here, the defendant's confession wassufficiently supported by independent corroborative evidence that the offenses of whichthe defendant was convicted were committed. Thus, the absence of a charge inaccordance with CPL 60.50 did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial (see People vCrimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 237-238 [1975]). Furthermore, defense counsel's failure tomove to dismiss on the ground of lack of corroboration and to request a charge inaccordance with [*2]CPL 60.50 did not constituteineffective assistance of counsel (see People v Santiago, 22 NY3d 740, 749 [2014]; People v McGee, 20 NY3d513, 518 [2013]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80,85-86 [1982]). Hall, J.P., Cohen, Hinds-Radix and LaSalle, JJ., concur.