| People v Baxter |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 05162 [140 AD3d 1180] |
| June 29, 2016 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Andrew Baxter, Appellant. |
William J. Reddy, New City, NY, for appellant.
Thomas P. Zugibe, District Attorney, New City, NY (Itamar J. Yeger of counsel ofcounsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Rockland County(Kelly, J.), rendered July 22, 2013, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, robberyin the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon ajury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after ahearing, of those branches of the defendant's omnibus motion which were to suppressphysical evidence and his statements to law enforcement officials.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the record supports the hearing court'sdetermination that the police were justified in stopping his vehicle based on theirreasonable suspicion of criminal activity (see People v Ocasio, 85 NY2d 982, 984[1995]; People v Mitchell, 143 AD2d 947, 948 [1988]). Since the stop of thevehicle was lawful, the hearing court properly denied that branch of the defendant'somnibus motion which was to suppress the physical evidence recovered from the vehicle(see People v Mitchell, 125AD3d 790 [2015]).
Also, the hearing court properly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibusmotion which was to suppress his statements to law enforcement officials, as thestatements were made after the defendant intelligently, knowingly, and voluntarilywaived his Miranda rights (see Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 [1966];People v Santos, 38 AD3d574, 575 [2007]) and were not the product of coercion (see People v Cooper, 36 AD3d828 [2007]). We reject the defendant's related contention that his statements shouldhave been suppressed based on a violation of his right to counsel because they wereobtained following his arrest on a valid parole violation warrant. Contrary to thedefendant's assertion, the issuance of a parole violation warrant does not constitute thecommencement of a criminal proceeding to which the indelible right to counsel attaches(see People v Frankos, 110 AD2d 713 [1985]; see also People v Pelkey,294 AD2d 669, 670 [2002]). Mastro, J.P., Dickerson, Austin and Roman, JJ.,concur.