Opinion
223 KA 14–00670
03-15-2019
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Miles S. MITCHELL, Defendant–appellant.
BRIDGET L. FIELD, ROCHESTER, FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT. SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (LEAH R. MERVINE OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
BRIDGET L. FIELD, ROCHESTER, FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT.
SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (LEAH R. MERVINE OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., CARNI, LINDLEY, AND CURRAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of, inter alia, two counts of murder in the second degree ( Penal Law § 125.25[1], [3] ) and one count of attempted robbery in the first degree (§§ 110.00, 160.15[4] ). We previously held this case, reserved decision, and remitted the matter to Supreme Court to reopen the Huntley hearing with respect to recorded statements that defendant made to an agent of the police ( People v. Mitchell , 144 A.D.3d 1598, 1600, 41 N.Y.S.3d 805 [4th Dept. 2016] ). Upon remittal, the court held the hearing and concluded that defendant's statements should not be suppressed, and we now affirm. The statements in question were made by defendant to the mother of his children while they were riding in her vehicle after she agreed to allow the police to place recording devices in her vehicle. Defendant requested that the witness give him a ride, and defendant was in the vehicle less than 10 minutes, during which there was a conversation between defendant and the witness. The testimony at the suppression hearing and the recording support the court's determination "that ‘a reasonable person in defendant's position, innocent of any crime, would not have believed that he or she was in custody, and thus Miranda warnings were not required’ " ( People v. Leta, 151 A.D.3d 1761, 1762, 55 N.Y.S.3d 847 [4th Dept. 2017], lv denied 30 N.Y.3d 981, 67 N.Y.S.3d 583, 89 N.E.3d 1263 [2017] ; see People v. Clark, 136 A.D.3d 1367, 1368, 25 N.Y.S.3d 485 [4th Dept. 2016], lv denied 27 N.Y.3d 1130, 39 N.Y.S.3d 112, 61 N.E.3d 511 [2016] ). In addition, considering the totality of the circumstances, we agree with the court's further determination that defendant's statements were voluntarily made (see generally People v. Huff, 133 A.D.3d 1223, 1225, 19 N.Y.S.3d 378 [4th Dept. 2015], lv denied 27 N.Y.3d 999, 38 N.Y.S.3d 109, 59 N.E.3d 1221 [2016] ; People v. Alexander , 51 A.D.3d 1380, 1381, 857 N.Y.S.2d 418 [4th Dept. 2008], lv denied 11 N.Y.3d 733, 864 N.Y.S.2d 392, 894 N.E.2d 656 [2008] ). The witness made no threats, promises, or exertions of improper influence to elicit defendant's statements (see People v. Taplin , 1 A.D.3d 1044, 1045, 767 N.Y.S.2d 541 [4th Dept. 2003], lv denied 1 N.Y.3d 635, 777 N.Y.S.2d 33, 808 N.E.2d 1292 [2004] ; People v. Lussier , 298 A.D.2d 763, 764, 749 N.Y.S.2d 323 [3d Dept. 2002], lv denied 99 N.Y.2d 630, 760 N.Y.S.2d 111, 790 N.E.2d 285 [2003] ; People v. Keene , 148 A.D.2d 977, 978, 539 N.Y.S.2d 214 [4th Dept. 1989] ).
Defendant's sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.