| People v Alvarenga |
| 2021 NY Slip Op 00185 [190 AD3d 762] |
| January 13, 2021 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Pablo Alvarenga, Appellant. |
Laurette D. Mulry, Riverhead, NY (Felice B. Milani of counsel), for appellant.
Timothy D. Sini, District Attorney, Riverhead, NY (Rosalind C. Gray and Marion Tang ofcounsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Karen M.Wilutis, J.), rendered March 13, 2019, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, burglaryin the second degree as a sexually motivated felony, attempted rape in the first degree, andintimidating a victim in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. Theappeal brings 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.
We agree with the County Court's determination, made after a Huntley hearing(see People v Huntley, 15 NY2d 72 [1965]), denying that branch of the defendant'somnibus motion which was to suppress his oral and written statements to law enforcementofficials. The record establishes that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligentlywaived his rights under Miranda v Arizona (384 US 436 [1966]) prior to making hisstatements (see People v Torres, 177AD3d 579 [2019]; People vCapela, 97 AD3d 760, 761 [2012]; see also People v Martinez, 68 AD3d 1757, 1758 [2009]). Theevidence presented at the suppression hearing demonstrated that an officer translated theMiranda rights into Spanish for the Spanish-speaking defendant and that the defendant'swritten statement was read back to him in Spanish before he signed and adopted the statement ashis own (see People v Zelaya, 170AD3d 1206, 1207 [2019]; People vMora, 57 AD3d 571, 572 [2008]).
The defendant's further contention that the County Court erred in denying that branch of hisomnibus motion which was to suppress his statements because law enforcement officials failedto videotape his statements is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]) and,in any event, without merit. Mastro, A.P.J., Rivera, Miller and Duffy, JJ., concur.