Opinion
November 13, 1995
Appeal from the County Court, Orange County (Byrne, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The hearing court properly found that the defendant voluntarily and knowingly waived his Miranda rights prior to his request to speak with an attorney. The record failed to establish that the defendant was "intoxicated to the degree of mania" or unable to understand the Miranda rights or the meaning of his statements (People v Schompert, 19 N.Y.2d 300, 305, cert denied 389 U.S. 874; People v San Juan, 168 A.D.2d 648). Moreover, assuming that the defendant was actually represented on another pending charge, such representation did not preclude the waiver of his Miranda rights in the absence of counsel with regard to the new, unrelated charges (see, People v Bing, 76 N.Y.2d 331; People v Melvin, 188 A.D.2d 555, 556; People v Goodman, 166 A.D.2d 541, 542).
The hearing record demonstrates that the police searched the defendant's apartment with the consent of his mother, who lived in the apartment. Accordingly, the evidence seized from the apartment was properly admitted into evidence (see, People v Cosme, 48 N.Y.2d 286, 290; People v Greenberg, 187 A.D.2d 528).
The defendant's contention that the circumstantial evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245). In any event, viewing the circumstantial evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Williams, 84 N.Y.2d 925), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
Finally, the defendant's claim that the trial court erred in failing to charge the jury on the defense of intoxication is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v Humphrey, 186 A.D.2d 148, 149; People v Powell, 181 A.D.2d 923; People v Adams, 166 A.D.2d 711), and, in any event, is without merit (see, People v Rodriguez, 76 N.Y.2d 918; People v Carpenter, 199 A.D.2d 524; People v Powell, supra). Ritter, J.P., Pizzuto, Santucci and Krausman, JJ., concur.