Opinion
October 24, 1988
Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Boklan, J.).
Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
For a recitation of the facts in this case, see People v Barreto ( 143 A.D.2d 920 [decided herewith]).
Like his codefendants, the defendant argues that his convictions should be reversed because the admission of his codefendants' statements at their joint trial violated his Sixth Amendment (US Const 6th Amend) right to confront and cross-examine witnesses (see, Cruz v New York, 481 U.S. 186). We initially note that this defendant failed to preserve this issue for appellate review since he never moved for a severance of his trial from that of his codefendants or objected to the admission of the statements of his codefendants into evidence (see, People v Walker, 71 N.Y.2d 1018; People v Green, 138 A.D.2d 516). In any event, for the reasons stated in People v Barreto (supra), we find this argument to be without merit. Similar to the case of his codefendant Barreto, the defendant's own statement fully and satisfactorily explained his own part in the crime without reference to the codefendants' statements (see, People v Hamlin, 71 N.Y.2d 750, 758; People v Green, supra). In addition, there was overwhelming independent evidence of the defendant's involvement in the crime which corroborated his statements (see, People v West, 72 N.Y.2d 941; People v Hamlin, supra, at 759; People v Green, supra). Therefore, the admission of his codefendants' statements was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v West, supra; People v Hamlin, supra).
The defendant further argues that the hearing court erred when it failed to suppress the statements he gave to the police. He claims that these confessions were taken in violation of his rights and were not freely and voluntarily given (see, Miranda v Arizona, 384 U.S. 436). The hearing court fully credited the testimony of the People's witnesses and held that the defendant had been advised of his right to remain silent before he gave each statement which was introduced at trial. This decision is entitled to great deference (see, People v Casiano, 123 A.D.2d 712; People v Oates, 104 A.D.2d 907), and there is nothing in the record to indicate that it was erroneous. The sentence imposed was not excessive and did not constitute an improvident exercise of discretion (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J.P., Lawrence, Spatt and Harwood, JJ., concur.