| People v Service |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 02687 [126 AD3d 638] |
| March 31, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vMichael Service, Appellant. |
Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Carl S. Kaplan ofcounsel), for appellant.
Michael Service, appellant pro se.
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (David P. Stromes of counsel), forrespondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bonnie G. Wittner, J.), renderedJanuary 13, 2011, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree,assault in the first degree and two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in thesecond degree, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 45 years to life, unanimouslymodified, on the law, to the extent of directing that the sentence for the weaponpossession conviction (pursuant to Penal Law § 265.03 [1] [b]) under thefifth count of the indictment be served concurrently with the sentence for the murderconviction, and otherwise affirmed.
The court properly denied defendant's suppression motion. There is no basis forsuppression of defendant's second and third statements. Approximately seven hours afterdefendant made an undisputedly voluntary initial statement, a detective precededrenewed interrogation with a reference to the fact that defendant had receivedMiranda warnings before his initial statement. This remark could not havereasonably been understood by defendant to mean that his prior waiver of rights wasirrevocable, and "there was no reason to believe that defendant 'had forgotten or nolonger understood his constitutional rights' " (People v Hotchkiss, 260AD2d 241, 241 [1st Dept 1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 1003 [1999]).
As the People concede, the sentence on the murder conviction should runconcurrently with the sentence on the weapon possession conviction that requiresunlawful intent (Penal Law § 265.03 [1] [b]), because the latter offense wasnot complete until defendant shot the victims (see People v Wright, 19 NY3d 359, 363 [2012]). However,defendant's claim regarding [*2]the legality of otherconsecutive sentences is without merit (see People v Lopez, 15 AD3d 232 [1st Dept 2005], lvdenied 4 NY3d 888 [2005]). We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
We have considered and rejected defendant's pro se claims. Concur—Tom,J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Manzanet-Daniels and Kapnick, JJ.