| People v Guerrier |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 04863 [129 AD3d 863] |
| June 10, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Ralph Guerrier, Appellant. |
Harry Tilis, Bohemia, N.Y., for appellant.
Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Grazia DiVincenzo ofcounsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County(Cohen, J.), rendered November 15, 2011, convicting him of murder in the seconddegree and attempted robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposingsentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of thedefendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress his statements to law enforcementofficials.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motionwhich was to suppress his statements to law enforcement officials. Contrary to thedefendant's contention, the record does not support the conclusion that the policeunnecessarily delayed his arraignment for purposes of depriving him of his right tocounsel and obtaining an involuntary confession (see People v Bonds, 118 AD3d 717 [2014]; People v Jin Cheng Lin, 105AD3d 761 [2013], lv granted 21 NY3d 1012 [2013]; People v Solorzano, 94 AD3d1153 [2012]; People vDeCampoamor, 91 AD3d 669 [2012]). Additionally, the evidence presented attrial did not establish that the defendant's statements were involuntary (see CPL60.45, 710.70 [3]; People v Williams, 297 AD2d 325 [2002]).
Furthermore, contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court providentlyexercised its discretion in denying his motion, made during the trial, to reopen thesuppression hearing. The defendant failed to demonstrate that the new facts he profferedin support of the motion were likely to affect the original determination (see CPL710.40 [4]; People v Clark, 88 NY2d 552, 555 [1996]; People v Perkins, 124 AD3d915 [2015]; People vMoore, 118 AD3d 916, 918 [2014]).
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish hisguilt is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d484, 492 [2008]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable tothe prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that itwas legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.Moreover, upon our independent review pursuant to CPL 470.15 (5), we are satisfiedthat the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d633 [2006]).
[*2] The defendant'scontention that certain remarks made by the prosecutor during summation deprived himof a fair trial is also unpreserved for appellate review, since he either failed to object tothe remarks at issue, made only a general objection, or failed to request further curativerelief when his objections were sustained (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Romero, 7 NY3d911, 912 [2006]). In any event, all of the challenged portions of the prosecutor'ssummation were within the bounds of permissible comment, fair response to thedefendant's attack on the credibility of the People's witnesses, fair comment on theevidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, or permissible rhetoricalcomment (see People v Halm, 81 NY2d 819, 821 [1993]; People vGalloway, 54 NY2d 396, 399 [1981]; People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105,109-110 [1976]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80[1982]). Leventhal, J.P., Chambers, Roman and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.