Opinion
June 10, 1996
Appeal from the County Court, Westchester County (Scarpino, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
While it is "'"well recognized that over and beyond the ordinary constitutional safeguards provided for adults subjected to questioning, the police must exercise greater care to insure that the rights of youthful suspects are vigilantly observed"'" (People v. Gotte, 150 A.D.2d 488; see also, People v Ventiquattro, 138 A.D.2d 925; People v. Hall, 125 A.D.2d 698; People v. Ward, 95 A.D.2d 351), a minor is still capable of waiving his or her Miranda rights (see, Fare v. Micheal C., 442 U.S. 707; People v. Stephen J.B., 23 N.Y.2d 611; People v Thomas, 223 A.D.2d 612; People v. Wise, 204 A.D.2d 133, 134). There was no evidence in this case that the defendant was mistreated or threatened, and he indicated that he was voluntarily waiving his Miranda rights on several occasions. Further, since the defendant was over 16 years of age, the police were under no obligation to contact his legal guardian (see, CPL 1.20; 140.20; Family Ct Act § 305.2, [3]; People v. Salaam, 83 N.Y.2d 51, 56-58; People v. Styles, 208 A.D.2d 779; People v Pennix, 166 A.D.2d 729), and there was no evidence that the defendant asked to speak to his guardian before speaking to the police or that the police used deception and trickery to isolate the defendant from his family (see, People v. Salaam, supra; People v Bevilacqua, 45 N.Y.2d 508; People v. Pica, 159 A.D.2d 524, 525). While the defendant may have been intoxicated when he was arrested, the record does not support the conclusion that he was intoxicated to the degree of mania or of being unable to understand the meaning of his statements at the time he was interviewed (see, People v. Perry, 144 A.D.2d 706; People v Roth, 139 A.D.2d 605, 606; People v. Cureton, 139 A.D.2d 756). Accordingly, the branch of the defendant's motion which was to suppress his statements to the police was properly denied.
The defendant's contention that the sentencing court improvidently exercised its discretion when it denied his application to be adjudicated a youthful offender is without merit (see, CPL 720.10, 720. 20 Crim. Proc.). Miller, J.P., Ritter, Krausman and McGinity, JJ., concur.