| People v Hall |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 08541 [145 AD3d 915] |
| December 21, 2016 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Maurice Hall, Appellant. |
Mark Diamond, New York, NY, for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, Acting District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove and JillOziemblewski of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County(Tomei, J.), rendered December 19, 2013, convicting him of murder in the first degree(two counts), attempted murder in the second degree, and criminal possession of aweapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appealbrings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibusmotion which was to suppress his statements to law enforcement officials.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court properly denied thatbranch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress statements he made to lawenforcement officials after he was advised of his Miranda rights (see Mirandav Arizona, 384 US 436 [1966]). "A court generally must look to the totality of thecircumstances to determine the voluntariness of an inculpatory statement" (People v Brown, 113 AD3d785, 785 [2014]). "The factors to be weighed include the duration and conditions ofdetention, the manifest attitude of the police towards the defendant, the existence ofthreat or inducement, and the age, physical state, and mental state of the defendant"(People v Sakadinsky, 239 AD2d 443, 443 [1997]). "Where . . . aperson in police custody was issued Miranda warnings and waived those rightsvoluntarily and intelligently, 'it is not necessary to repeat the warnings prior tosubsequent questioning within a reasonable time thereafter, so long as the custody hasremained continuous' " (People v Petronio, 34 AD3d 602, 604 [2006], quotingPeople v Glinsman, 107 AD2d 710, 710 [1985]). The record supports the court'sdetermination that, under the circumstances presented here, the defendant's statementswere not involuntary (seePeople v Gega, 74 AD3d 1229, 1231 [2010]; People v Petronio, 34AD3d at 604; People vDishaw, 30 AD3d 689, 690 [2006]; People v Foster, 193 AD2d 692, 693[1993]; People v Abreu, 184 AD2d 707 [1992]; cf. People v Zappulla,282 AD2d 696, 697-698 [2001]).
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support hisconvictions is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492 [2008];People v Finger, 95 NY2d 894 [2000]). In any event, viewing the evidence in thelight most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620[1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to prove the [*2]defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover,upon our independent review pursuant to CPL 470.15 (5), we are satisfied that theverdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d633 [2006]).
The defendant's challenge to his adjudication as a second violent felony offender isunpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit (see CPL470.05 [2]; People v Wolmart, 140 AD2d 733 [1988]). Moreover, the sentenceimposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Balkin,J.P., Dickerson, LaSalle and Connolly, JJ., concur.