Opinion
KA 02-01943
November 21, 2003.
Appeal from a judgment of Ontario County Court (Doran, J.), entered July 30, 2002, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of rape in the third degree (two counts).
BONNIE BURGIO, WATERTOWN, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
R. MICHAEL TANTILLO, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, CANANDAIGUA (JEFFREY L. TAYLOR OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: PIGOTT, JR., P.J., GREEN, GORSKI, LAWTON, AND HAYES, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum:
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of two counts of rape in the third degree (Penal Law § 130.25). Defendant contends that County Court erred in denying his suppression motion because his statements were the result of custodial interrogation and the requisite Miranda warnings were not given. We reject that contention. Here, a police officer asked defendant to come to the police station to answer questions, and defendant agreed to do so. "A reasonable person innocent of any crime would not have believed that he was in custody, and thus [ Miranda] warnings were not required" ( People v. Scott, 288 A.D.2d 846, 847, lv denied 97 N.Y.2d 761, citing People v. Yukl, 25 N.Y.2d 585, 589, rearg denied 26 N.Y.2d 883, cert denied 400 U.S. 851). The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.