Opinion
October 12, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Ira Globerman, J.).
Defendant's statement regarding his nickname fell within the pedigree exception to Miranda (Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436; Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 U.S. 582, 601). There is no indication that the police in the instant case were trying to inculpate defendant by asking this question which appeared on the standard form pedigree worksheet. Moreover, the booking officer was not aware that a witness had previously identified the perpetrator by his nickname.
Furthermore, the People were not required to give notice of their intent to offer defendant's statement. "Although the statement had some inculpatory value, pedigree information provided by defendant to police during processing is not subject to suppression under CPL 60.45 and it is not subject to the notice requirements of CPL 710.30 [citations omitted]." (People v. Thomas, 195 A.D.2d 301, 301).
The fact that defendant received a harsher sentence after trial than he was offered during plea negotiations does not indicate that he was punished for exercising his right to a trial (People v. Pena, 50 N.Y.2d 400, 411-412, cert denied 449 U.S. 1087; People v. Sharkey, 186 A.D.2d 63, 64, lv denied 80 N.Y.2d 1030). The sentence imposed here is fully supported by defendant's extensive criminal record (see, People v. Brown, 183 A.D.2d 612, 613, lv denied 80 N.Y.2d 828), to which the court specifically referred.
Concur — Carro, J.P., Rosenberger, Ross and Asch, JJ.