Opinion
July 3, 1997
Present — Denman, P. J., Pine, Doerr, Balio and Boehm, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject the contention of defendant that his statement to the police was involuntary because it was induced by their false representation that witnesses saw him going back to the bar where the crime occurred (see, People v. Tarsia, 50 N.Y.2d 1, 11; People v. Robinson, 201 A.D.2d 931, 932, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 875; People v. Foster, 193 A.D.2d 692, 693, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 717; People v. Hassell, 180 A.D.2d 819, 820, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 1050). "An examination of the totality of the circumstances surrounding defendant's [statement] establishes that the [statement] was voluntary" (People v. Scott, 212 A.D.2d 1047, affd 86 N.Y.2d 864; cf., People v. Anderson, 42 N.Y.2d 35).
In light of the heinous nature of the crime, we conclude that the sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. The contention of defendant that he was penalized by the sentencing court for exercising his right to a trial is without merit (see, People v Jones, 236 A.D.2d 780; People v. Bradley [appeal No. 1], 184 A.D.2d 1041, lv denied 80 N.Y.2d 927).
Finally, defendant's remaining contention has not been preserved for our review (see, CPL 470.05), and we decline to exercise our power to review it as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [a]). (Appeal from Judgment of Onondaga County Court, Mulroy, J. — Sodomy, 1st Degree.)