Opinion
2013-05187, Ind. No. 2401/11.
10-21-2015
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Deivy TAUZARD, appellant.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (David P. Greenberg of counsel), for appellant, and appellant pro se. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, and Jeanette Lifschitz of counsel; Lorrie A. Zinno on the brief), for respondent.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (David P. Greenberg of counsel), for appellant, and appellant pro se.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, and Jeanette Lifschitz of counsel; Lorrie A. Zinno on the brief), for respondent.
RANDALL T. ENG, P.J., MARK C. DILLON, SANDRA L. SGROI, and JOSEPH J. MALTESE, JJ.
Opinion Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Modica, J.), rendered April 16, 2013, convicting him of assault in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of the defendant's motion to suppress his statements to law enforcement officials.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.The defendant's purported waiver of his right to appeal was invalid (see People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 ). The record does not demonstrate that the defendant “grasped the concept of the appeal waiver and the nature of the right he was forgoing” (People v. Bradshaw, 18 N.Y.3d 257, 267, 938 N.Y.S.2d 254, 961 N.E.2d 645 ; see People v. Jemmott, 125 A.D.3d 1005, 5 N.Y.S.3d 447 ; cf. People v. Sanders, 112 A.D.3d 748, 976 N.Y.S.2d 205, affd. 25 N.Y.3d 337, 12 N.Y.S.3d 593, 34 N.E.3d 344 ).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, raised in his pro se supplemental brief, the Supreme Court properly denied his motion to suppress his statements to law enforcement officials. The evidence presented at the suppression hearing supports the Supreme Court's determination that the defendant's statements were not the product of a custodial interrogation improperly conducted without the benefit of prior Miranda warnings (see People v.
Yukl, 25 N.Y.2d 585, 307 N.Y.S.2d 857, 256 N.E.2d 172 ; People v. Warren, 124 A.D.3d 699, 998 N.Y.S.2d 455 ; Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 ; People v. Marcelle, 120 A.D.3d 833, 991 N.Y.S.2d 658 ; People v. Williams, 97 A.D.3d 769, 948 N.Y.S.2d 428 ).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675 ).
The defendant's remaining contentions, raised in his pro se supplemental brief, are either without merit or not properly before this Court.