Opinion
August 6, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Goldstein, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
In view of the fact that defendant was fully advised of his Miranda rights prior to giving his statements to the police, the trial court did not err in refusing to suppress his statements. We find no merit to the defendant's contention that the waiver of his Miranda rights was involuntary because it was allegedly a result of deceptive assurances by a police officer. The police officer's statement that "maybe perhaps we can help you" cannot be construed as a direct or an implied promise of leniency (see, People v Weisbrot, 124 A.D.2d 762; People v Rykaczewski, 121 A.D.2d 409, 410; People v Perry, 77 A.D.2d 269; see also, People v Sumeriski, 119 A.D.2d 999). Nor was there any evidence to show that the defendant was so intoxicated that he was unable to comprehend the meaning and nature of his statements (see, People v Williams, 147 A.D.2d 515, 516; People v Provosty, 141 A.D.2d 867).
The defendant also argues that his statements should have been suppressed on the ground that they were taken in violation of his right to counsel. However, the fact that the defendant was represented by counsel on a prior unrelated charge did not preclude him from effectively waiving his Miranda rights in the absence of counsel (see, People v Bing, 76 N.Y.2d 331, overruling People v Bartolomeo 53 N.Y.2d 225). Lawrence, J.P., Kunzeman, Kooper and Harwood, JJ., concur.