Opinion
December 23, 1985
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Deeley, J.).
Judgment affirmed.
Defendant's challenge to the hearing court's denial of his motion to suppress certain inculpatory statements he made to police is without merit. The testimony at the Huntley hearing overwhelmingly established that defendant was fully informed of his Miranda rights, that he acknowledged and understood them, and that he made a knowing and voluntary waiver of them (see, People v Jerome, 111 A.D.2d 874). The People presented sufficient evidence at trial, if believed, to prove defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury was aware of the minor inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony, and the issue of credibility was clearly one for the trier of fact (see, People v Rosenfeld, 93 A.D.2d 872). A review of the evidence in a light most favorable to the People (see, People v Di Girolamo, 108 A.D.2d 755, lv. denied 64 N.Y.2d 1133) indicates that the verdict should not now be disturbed (see, People v Andrews, 112 A.D.2d 1002).
Defendant's contention that the sentence he received was harsh and excessive is similarly unpersuasive. The sentence imposed was clearly within the bounds of the trial court's sound discretion, especially in light of defendant's prior criminal involvement and the serious nature of the instant offenses (see, People v Farrar, 52 N.Y.2d 302; People v Blunk, 90 A.D.2d 834). We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Lazer, J.P., Bracken, Weinstein and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.