Opinion
2014-09-26
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Phillip L. JONES, Defendant–Appellant.
William G. Pixley, Rochester, for Defendant–Appellant. Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Matthew Dunham of Counsel), for Respondent.
William G. Pixley, Rochester, for Defendant–Appellant. Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Matthew Dunham of Counsel), for Respondent.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, LINDLEY, VALENTINO AND DeJOSEPH, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03[3] ). Defendant contends that the People failed to establish that he knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his Miranda rights, and that County Court therefore erred in refusing to suppress the statements he made to the police after the arresting officer read him those rights. Specifically, defendant contends that the evidence at the Huntley hearing demonstrates that he did not waive his Miranda rights, but that he asked the arresting officer “[w]hat's going on” after the arresting officer read him the Miranda warnings. Contrary to defendant's contention, the court properly refused to suppress those statements. It is well settled that “an explicit verbal waiver is not required; an implicit waiver may suffice and may be inferred from the circumstances” (People v. Smith, 217 A.D.2d 221, 234, 635 N.Y.S.2d 824, lv. denied87 N.Y.2d 977, 642 N.Y.S.2d 207, 664 N.E.2d 1270). Thus, “[w]here, as here, a defendant has been advised of his Miranda rights and within minutes thereafter willingly answers questions during interrogation, ‘no other indication prior to the commencement of interrogation is necessary to support a conclusion that the defendant implicitly waived those rights' ” (People v. Goncalves, 288 A.D.2d 883, 884, 732 N.Y.S.2d 765, lv denied97 N.Y.2d 729, 740 N.Y.S.2d 702, 767 N.E.2d 159, quoting People v. Sirno, 76 N.Y.2d 967, 968, 563 N.Y.S.2d 730, 565 N.E.2d 479; see People v. Strahin, 114 A.D.3d 1284, 1285, 980 N.Y.S.2d 227, lv. denied23 N.Y.3d 968, 988 N.Y.S.2d 575).
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.