Summary
finding no improper isolation where mother was aware of defendant son's location and situation
Summary of this case from Brown v. RiveraOpinion
Argued January 24, 2000
February 28, 2000
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Robinson, J.), rendered May 29, 1998, convicting him of murder in the second degree, robbery in the first degree (two counts), and robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Leach, J.), of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress his statements to law enforcement officials.
Pariser Vogelman, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Daniel W. Pariser and Richard Geller of counsel ), for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Ellen C. Abbot, and Kenneth V. Byrne of counsel), for respondent.
WILLIAM C. THOMPSON, J.P., SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, NANCY E. SMITH, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that his statements to detectives should have been suppressed because they were obtained by deceit and trickery, and by intentionally and unlawfully isolating him from his mother, who was his only avenue to obtaining counsel. We disagree. The defendant failed to establish that the isolation resulted from official deception or trickery (see, People v. Salaam, 83 N.Y.2d 51, 55 ; People v. Townsend, 33 N.Y.2d 37 ). The police told his mother where they were taking him, i.e., to the station house. When the defendant's mother telephoned the station house she was truthfully informed that the defendant was there, that there was a problem, and that she should come there. There is no indication that the defendant's mother attempted to obtain a lawyer for the defendant at any time. Moreover, where there has been no attempt by the police to conceal the presence of the defendant or to deceive the family, a refusal by the police to allow a parent to see a child does not render any subsequently-obtained confession inadmissible per se (see, People v. Salaam, supra, at 56; see also, People v. Townsend, supra, at 42; People v. Taylor, 16 N.Y.2d 1038 ; People v. Hocking, 15 N.Y.2d 973 ). Additionally, since the defendant was 16 years old, there was no requirement that his mother or some other family member be present during the police questioning (see, People v. Dearstyne, 230 A.D.2d 953, 958 ; People v. Morales, 228 A.D.2d 525 ;People v. Thomas, 223 A.D.2d 612, 613 ).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80 ).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.