| People v Frazier |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 04729 [140 AD3d 977] |
| June 15, 2016 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Arthur Frazier, Appellant. |
Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, NY (Joshua Norkin of counsel), for appellant,and appellant pro se.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (John M. Castellano,Stephanie D. Schwartz, Johnnette Traill, Merri Turk Lasky, and Nancy FitzpatrickTalcott of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County(Camacho, J.), rendered October 26, 2011, convicting him of burglary in the seconddegree (eight counts), upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal bringsup for review the denial, after a hearing (Paynter, J.), of that branch of the defendant'somnibus motion which was to suppress his statements to law enforcement officials.
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. The credibilitydeterminations of a court following a suppression hearing are entitled to great deferenceon appeal and will not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see People v Tissiera, 22 AD3d611 [2005]). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the testimony of a policedetective that the defendant waived his Miranda rights (see Miranda vArizona, 384 US 436 [1966]) was not incredible, patently tailored to nullifyconstitutional objections, or otherwise unworthy of belief (cf. People v Garafolo,44 AD2d 86, 87 [1974]; seegenerally People v Calabria, 3 NY3d 80, 82 [2004]), and the court properlydetermined that the defendant's statements were knowing and voluntary.
Contrary to the contentions raised at points 1 through 5 of the defendant's pro sesupplemental brief, the defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel,as defense counsel provided meaningful representation (see People v Benevento,91 NY2d 708 [1998]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137 [1981]).
The arguments raised at points 6 and 7 of the defendant's pro se supplemental briefare without merit.
The arguments raised at points 8, 9 and 10 of the defendant's pro se supplementalbrief are based on evidence that is not part of the record on appeal, and therefore, thesearguments [*2]cannot be addressed on direct appeal (see generally People v Rohlehr,87 AD3d 603, 604 [2011]). The proper vehicle for addressing these claims is a CPL440.10 motion, upon which matter outside the record can be considered (see id. at604). Dillon, J.P., Miller, Hinds-Radix and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.