Opinion
November 27, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (R. Goldberg, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's waiver of his right to appeal the denial of the branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress his statements to law enforcement authorities was ineffective (see, People v. Bray, 154 A.D.2d 692; CPL 710.70). However, the hearing court correctly concluded that the defendant's three statements were admissible at trial (see, e.g., People v Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761; People v Watson, 198 A.D.2d 461; People v DeLaCruz, 194 A.D.2d 620, 621). The first statement was a spontaneous utterance (see, e.g., People v Ellis, 58 N.Y.2d 748), and the second and third statements were made only after the defendant had knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his constitutional rights. The defendant's contention that he was too impaired by fatigue, hunger, and the bruises that had been inflicted by his neighbors to make a voluntary statement is belied, inter alia, by his failure to seek medical attention and by his appearance on the videotape of one of the statements (see, e.g., People v Turner, 200 A.D.2d 603, 604; People v Diaz, 177 A.D.2d 500).
Finally, the defendant waived his right to appeal the terms of his plea and sentence, including the adequacy of his factual allocution (see, e.g., People v Burk, 181 A.D.2d 74). In any event, nothing in the defendant's factual allocution casts doubt upon his guilt, negates an essential element of the crime, or suggests a legitimate defense (see, e.g., People v Clinton, 179 A.D.2d 670; People v Thomas, 159 A.D.2d 529; People v Zeth, 148 A.D.2d 960). O'Brien, J.P., Pizzuto, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.