Opinion
October 29, 1992
Appeal from the County Court of Ulster County (Vogt, J.).
We find no merit to defendant's contention that his statements to police must be suppressed because of a lack of probable cause for arrest. The police observed defendant's car speeding in close proximity to the time and place of a stabbing soon after receiving a radio transmission indicating that a car of the same type and color had been used in connection with the stabbing. We find that this information supported reasonable suspicion allowing a stop of the car (see, People v Rivera, 124 A.D.2d 682; People v Adams, 123 A.D.2d 769, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 707). The fact that the police approached the car with their weapons drawn as a precautionary measure to ensure their own safety was justified given the circumstances and did not escalate the initial stop into a full blown arrest (see, supra; cf., People v Allen, 73 N.Y.2d 378; People v Chestnut, 51 N.Y.2d 14, cert denied 449 U.S. 1018). Upon approaching the car, police noticed blood on defendant's hand. We find that this information provided probable cause for defendant's arrest. Therefore, even if we were to agree with defendant that other radio transmissions received by police prior to defendant's arrest could not serve as a basis for establishing probable cause due to a failure to establish the sufficiency or reliability of the information conveyed, suppression would not be required (see, People v Clark, 64 N.Y.2d 938).
Defendant also contends that his statements to police should have been suppressed as involuntary. We disagree. Initially, defendant waived any argument as to the inadmissability of his brief exculpatory remark in explanation of the blood on his hand in response to a police officer's question by his failure to raise the issue before County Court (see, People v Harris, 79 A.D.2d 615). As to his other inculpatory statements, the record reveals that defendant was given his Miranda warnings in his native language prior to these statements and that defendant voluntarily waived his rights (see, People v Alvarez, 118 A.D.2d 785, lv denied 68 N.Y.2d 912; People v Jordan, 110 A.D.2d 855). Defendant was not subject to any coercive tactics that would render these statements involuntary (see, People v Patterson, 88 A.D.2d 694, affd 59 N.Y.2d 794).
Finally, defendant argues that the 5- to 15-year prison sentence he received was harsh and excessive. Given that defendant was allowed to plead guilty to a single count of attempted murder in the second degree in full satisfaction of a two-count indictment and that defendant was not given the harshest sentence possible, and considering the heinous nature of the crime, we do not find that County Court abused its discretion in sentencing defendant (see, People v Sinclair, 150 A.D.2d 950; People v Mackey, 136 A.D.2d 780, lv denied 71 N.Y.2d 899).
Mikoll, J.P., Yesawich Jr., Mercure, Crew III and Casey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.