Opinion
December 1, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Kuffner, Jr., J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that his statements to police officials should have been suppressed as they had been rendered involuntary due to his extreme fatigue. However, the evidence does not support a finding that the defendant was so fatigued that he was incapable of intelligently waiving his rights or comprehending the meaning of his statements ( see, People v. Swimley, 190 A.D.2d 1070, 1071; People v. Duffy, 185 A.D.2d 371, 372).
Further, contrary to the defendant's contention, the use of two juries was not disruptive, as it did not require frequent removal of his or his codefendant's jury and did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial ( see, People v. Ricardo B., 73 N.Y.2d 228, 234; People v. Wallace, 153 A.D.2d 59, 67).
The sentence was not excessive ( see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review ( see, CPL 470.05) or without merit.
Bracken, J. P., O'Brien, Sullivan and Santucci, JJ., concur.