Opinion
February 2, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Farlo, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The hearing court did not err in concluding that under the totality of the circumstances the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights, as the defendant was read his rights, stated that he understood them, and then began freely answering questions (see, North Carolina v. Butler, 441 U.S. 369; People v. Harris, 79 A.D.2d 615; People v. Baez, 79 A.D.2d 608). This conclusion is buttressed by the testimony of the Assistant District Attorney who took one of the defendant's statements that the defendant stated that Officer Hasell had previously advised him of his rights and that the defendant had agreed to talk to the officer.
The record establishes that the defendant's guilty plea was entered knowingly and voluntarily, with an understanding of the consequences and with advice of counsel (see, People v. Jones, 109 A.D.2d 893; People v. Yarrish, 107 A.D.2d 836; People v Santiago, 100 A.D.2d 857). Thus, it cannot be said that the court abused its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mollen, P.J., Thompson, Weinstein and Rubin, JJ., concur.