Opinion
August 7, 1989
Appeal from the County Court, Suffolk County (Vaughn, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
With respect to the defendant's claim that his warrantless arrest in his home violated the rule of Payton v. New York ( 445 U.S. 573), the evidence in the record establishes that the defendant's mother who owned the home consented to the police detectives' entry. Consent can be established by conduct as well as words (see, People v. Davis, 120 A.D.2d 606, 607; People v Abrams, 95 A.D.2d 155, 157). In this case the defendant's mother told the detectives that her son was in his bedroom and pointed to the room. Thus, by her words and conduct she indicated her consent (see also, People v. Schof, 136 A.D.2d 578, 579).
Since the record supports the hearing court's determination (1) that the defendant's statement to police detectives prior to having been advised of his Miranda rights was spontaneous, and not the result of custodial interrogation, and (2) that his subsequent statements were voluntarily given after he was advised of his Miranda rights (see, People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759 ; People v. Rivers, 56 N.Y.2d 476, 479; People v. Martin, 143 A.D.2d 773), his statements were properly admitted at trial.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621), we find that his guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15).
The defendant was properly sentenced as a persistent violent felony offender (see, People v. Morse, 62 N.Y.2d 205).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Rubin, J.P., Spatt, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.