Opinion
2015–08146 Ind.No. 14–00273
01-24-2018
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Lorenzo ADAMS, appellant.
Mark Diamond, New York, NY, for appellant. Thomas P. Zugibe, District Attorney, New City, N.Y. (Itamar J. Yeger of counsel), for respondent.
Mark Diamond, New York, NY, for appellant.
Thomas P. Zugibe, District Attorney, New City, N.Y. (Itamar J. Yeger of counsel), for respondent.
L. PRISCILLA HALL, J.P., SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, JOSEPH J. MALTESE, ANGELA G. IANNACCI, JJ.
DECISION & ORDERAppeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (William A. Kelly, J.), rendered June 4, 2015, convicting him of robbery in the third degree and criminal possession of an anti-security item, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress statements he made to law enforcement officials.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction of robbery in the third degree is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 492, 872 N.Y.S.2d 395, 900 N.E.2d 946 ). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932 ), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of that crime (see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 ). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15[5] ; People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 ), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt of that crime was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902 ).Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress statements he made to law enforcement officials. The defendant was not in custody at the time that he made the first two sets of challenged statements (see People v. Yukl, 25 N.Y.2d 585, 307 N.Y.S.2d 857, 256 N.E.2d 172 ; People v. Gelin, 128 A.D.3d 717, 8 N.Y.S.3d 424 ; People v. Reardon, 124 A.D.3d 681, 1 N.Y.S.3d 289 ; People v. Gore, 117 A.D.3d 845, 845–846, 986 N.Y.S.2d 170 ; People v. Martin, 68 A.D.3d 1015, 890 N.Y.S.2d 646 ). The third challenged statement, made while the defendant was in custody but prior to the administration of Miranda warnings (see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 ), was spontaneous, and not triggered by any police questioning or other conduct which reasonably could have been expected to elicit a declaration from him (see People v. Goldson, 136 A.D.3d 1053, 1054, 26 N.Y.S.3d 543 ; People v. Barley, 82 A.D.3d 996, 996, 919 N.Y.S.2d 86 ; People v. Henderson, 57 A.D.3d 562, 868 N.Y.S.2d 299 ).
The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court's jury instructions diminished the People's burden of proof is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ). In any event, the jury instructions, taken as a whole, conveyed the correct standard (see People v. Medina, 18 N.Y.3d 98, 936 N.Y.S.2d 608, 960 N.E.2d 377 ; People v. Fields, 87 N.Y.2d 821, 637 N.Y.S.2d 355, 660 N.E.2d 1134 ; People v. Hankerson, 149 A.D.3d 778, 51 N.Y.S.3d 169 ; People v. King, 73 A.D.3d 1083, 903 N.Y.S.2d 56 ). Since the instructions were adequate, defense counsel's failure to object to the court's charge did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel (see People v. Hankerson, 149 A.D.3d 778, 51 N.Y.S.3d 169 ).The defendant's contention that he was deprived of his right to present a defense by the Supreme Court's curtailment of his cross-examination of a prosecution witness is also unpreserved for appellate review (see People v. Valdez–Cruz, 99 A.D.3d 738, 951 N.Y.S.2d 582 ). In any event, this contention is without merit (see People v. Hudy, 73 N.Y.2d 40, 56, 538 N.Y.S.2d 197, 535 N.E.2d 250 ; People v. Cruz, 131 A.D.3d 706, 707, 15 N.Y.S.3d 692 ).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
HALL, J.P., HINDS–RADIX, MALTESE and IANNACCI, JJ., concur.