Opinion
2017–10679 Ind. No. 1675/16
06-12-2019
The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Frantz JEANCHARLES, Appellant.
Law Office of Stephen N. Preziosi, P.C., New York, NY, for appellant. Timothy D. Sini, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Glenn Green, Lauren Tan, Thomas C. Costello, and Nicole Gallo of counsel), for respondent.
Law Office of Stephen N. Preziosi, P.C., New York, NY, for appellant.
Timothy D. Sini, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Glenn Green, Lauren Tan, Thomas C. Costello, and Nicole Gallo of counsel), for respondent.
LEONARD B. AUSTIN, J.P., SHERI S. ROMAN, SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.
DECISION & ORDERAppeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (John J. Toomey, J.), rendered August 9, 2017, convicting him of course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Barbara Kahn, J.), of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress his statements to law enforcement officials.ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
We agree with the County Court's determination to deny that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress his statements to law enforcement officials. The record reflects that the defendant's statements were voluntarily made after he knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights (see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 ; People v. Ramos, 164 A.D.3d 1267, 1267, 83 N.Y.S.3d 580 ; People v. Currie, 131 A.D.3d 1265, 1266, 16 N.Y.S.3d 866 ; People v. Sepulveda, 40 A.D.3d 1014, 837 N.Y.S.2d 220 ).
The defendant's contention that he was deprived of his right to a fair trial due to improper remarks made by the prosecutor during his summation is without merit. The prosecutor's comments were either fair comment on the evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, or fair response to the arguments made by defense counsel in summation (see People v. Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396, 399, 446 N.Y.S.2d 9, 430 N.E.2d 885 ; People v. Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d 105, 109–110, 383 N.Y.S.2d 204, 347 N.E.2d 564 ; People v. King, 144 A.D.3d 1176, 1176–1177, 41 N.Y.S.3d 751 ).The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675 ).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.
AUSTIN, J.P., ROMAN, HINDS–RADIX and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.