| People v Rounds |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 00104 [124 AD3d 1351] |
| January 2, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vMark A. Rounds, Appellant. |
Timothy P. Donaher, Public Defender, Rochester, Harter Secrest & Emery LLP(Maura McGuire of counsel), for defendant-appellant.
Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Robert J. Shoemaker of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Alex R. Renzi, J.),rendered June 20, 2012. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, ofcriminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimouslyaffirmed.
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon a plea of guilty ofcriminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03[3]), defendant contends that the weapon seized from his residence was the product of anillegal search and that Supreme Court therefore erred in refusing to suppress it. We rejectthat contention. The search was conducted by parole officers "in furtherance of parolepurposes and related to [their] dut[ies] as . . . parole officer[s]" (People vJohnson, 63 NY2d 888, 890 [1984], rearg denied 64 NY2d 647 [1984][internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Davis, 101 AD3d 1778, 1779 [2012], lvdenied 20 NY3d 1060 [2013]; People v Scott, 93 AD3d 1193, 1194 [2012], lvdenied 19 NY3d 967 [2012], reconsideration denied 19 NY3d 1001 [2012]).The parole officers had a reasonable basis to believe that a gun would be located in theresidence based on the suspicious nature of defendant's statement that he had been shot inthe foot by an unknown assailant at his residence, and based on the fact that no evidenceof a third-party shooter was uncovered during the police investigation (see People v Nappi, 83 AD3d1592, 1594 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 820 [2011]; see generally Peoplev Huntley, 43 NY2d 175, 181 [1977]). Contrary to defendant's contention, the factthat the parole officers received assistance from a police officer at the scene did notrender the search a police operation requiring a search warrant (see Davis, 101AD3d at 1779; Nappi, 83 AD3d at 1594; People v Johnson, 54 AD3d 969, 970 [2008]).
We reject defendant's further contention that the court erred in failing to suppress thestatements he made to a police officer at the hospital, prior to receiving Mirandawarnings. Under the circumstances, we conclude that defendant was not in custody whenhe made those statements (seePeople v Drouin, 115 AD3d 1153, 1155-1156 [2014], lv denied 23NY3d 1019 [2014]; see generally People v Forbes, 182 AD2d 829, 829-830[1992], lv denied 80 NY2d 895 [1992]). We therefore reject defendant's furthercontention that the post-Miranda statements should be suppressed as fruit of theunlawful pre-Miranda questioning (see People v Adelman, 1 AD3d 1029, 1030 [2003]).Present—Centra, J.P., Fahey, Valentino, Whalen and DeJoseph, JJ.