Opinion
2016–03832 Ind. No. 528/15
07-25-2018
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Marcell HAYNES, appellant.
Jarred S. Freeman, Staten Island, NY, for appellant. Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Yael V. Levy and Mary Faldich of counsel), for respondent.
Jarred S. Freeman, Staten Island, NY, for appellant.
Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Yael V. Levy and Mary Faldich of counsel), for respondent.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., REINALDO E. RIVERA, LEONARD B. AUSTIN, HECTOR D. LASALLE, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Angelo A. Delligatti, J.), rendered April 1, 2016, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and criminal possession of a firearm, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress his statements to law enforcement officials.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the Miranda warnings (see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 ) given to him before obtaining his statements were inadequate. This contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit (see People v. Wallace, 106 A.D.3d 1034, 1035, 965 N.Y.S.2d 198 ; People v. Louisias, 29 A.D.3d 1017, 1018–1019, 815 N.Y.S.2d 727 ; People v. Bartlett, 191 A.D.2d 574, 575, 595 N.Y.S.2d 89 ).
The defendant's contention that the court should have inquired whether his failure to testify was intelligent and voluntary is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ). In any event, " ‘[a] trial court does not have a general obligation to sua sponte ascertain if the defendant's failure to testify was a voluntary and intelligent waiver of his right’ " ( People v. Marcelle, 120 A.D.3d 833, 834, 991 N.Y.S.2d 658, quoting People v. Dolan, 2 A.D.3d 745, 746, 768 N.Y.S.2d 654 ; see People v. Fratta, 83 N.Y.2d 771, 772, 610 N.Y.S.2d 947, 632 N.E.2d 1270 ; People v. Marquis A., 145 A.D.3d 61, 66, 40 N.Y.S.3d 609 ; People v. Pilato, 145 A.D.3d 1593, 1595, 46 N.Y.S.3d 313 ; People v. Cosby, 82 A.D.3d 63, 66, 916 N.Y.S.2d 689 ; People v. Menner, 2 A.D.3d 650, 769 N.Y.S.2d 569 ).
The defendant's challenge to the jury charge is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ) and, in any event, without merit.
MASTRO, J.P., RIVERA, AUSTIN and LASALLE, JJ., concur.