Opinion
2014-02-5
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. David C. KNUDSON, appellant.
Joseph R. Faraguna, Sag Harbor, N.Y., for appellant. Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Cristin N. Connell and Elizabeth E. Schlissel of counsel), for respondent.
Joseph R. Faraguna, Sag Harbor, N.Y., for appellant. Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Cristin N. Connell and Elizabeth E. Schlissel of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Donnino, J.), rendered January 26, 2012, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree, attempted assault in the first degree, strangulation in the second degree, aggravated criminal contempt, and resisting arrest, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (St.George, J.), of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppresshis statements to law enforcement officials.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, there is no basis to disturb the hearing court's determination that a statement he gave to a detective was voluntarily made after he knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his Miranda rights ( see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694). The evidence at the suppression hearing does not support the defendant's contention that he was “ ‘intoxicated to the degree of mania, or of being unable to understand the meaning of his statements' ” (People v. Shields, 295 A.D.2d 374, 742 N.Y.S.2d 909, quoting People v. Schompert, 19 N.Y.2d 300, 305, 279 N.Y.S.2d 515, 226 N.E.2d 305, cert. denied389 U.S. 874, 88 S.Ct. 164, 19 L.Ed.2d 157). The fact that the defendant was moved from one floor of the police station to another and there was a 30–minute hiatus between the time the Miranda warnings were administered and the time the defendant made the statement did not render the statement involuntary or the warnings ineffective ( see People v. Tobias, 273 A.D.2d 925, 711 N.Y.S.2d 652; People v. James, 271 A.D.2d 456, 706 N.Y.S.2d 883).
Suppression of two statements the defendant made to a police officer before Miranda warnings were administered was properly denied, as those statements were not the product of express questioning or its functional equivalent ( see Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 100 S.Ct. 1682, 64 L.Ed.2d 297; People v. Latimer, 75 A.D.3d 562, 904 N.Y.S.2d 763).
The defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel ( see People v. Caban, 5 N.Y.3d 143, 152, 800 N.Y.S.2d 70, 833 N.E.2d 213). SKELOS, J.P., DICKERSON, CHAMBERS and MILLER, JJ., concur.