Opinion
2016–09841 Ind. No. 1164N/15
01-30-2019
The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Jose HOLGUIN, Appellant.
Andrew E. MacAskill, Westbury, N.Y., for appellant. Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (John Latella and Brian Witthuhn of counsel), for respondent.
Andrew E. MacAskill, Westbury, N.Y., for appellant.
Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (John Latella and Brian Witthuhn of counsel), for respondent.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., RUTH C. BALKIN, JOSEPH J. MALTESE, BETSY BARROS, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Terence P. Murphy, J.), rendered September 8, 2016, convicting him of sexual abuse in the first degree, forcible touching, and endangering the welfare of a child, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing pursuant to stipulation in lieu of motions, of the suppression of certain statements made by the defendant.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
We agree with the Supreme Court's determination to deny suppression of the defendant's statements made during his video-recorded interview with a law enforcement official. Based upon the totality of the circumstances, the defendant voluntarily waived his Miranda rights ( Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 ) prior to making the challenged statements (see People v. Williams, 62 N.Y.2d 285, 289–290, 476 N.Y.S.2d 788, 465 N.E.2d 327 ; People v. Currie, 131 A.D.3d 1265, 1266, 16 N.Y.S.3d 866 ; People v. Smith, 177 A.D.2d 724, 725, 577 N.Y.S.2d 93 ). The defendant's contention that the court should have suppressed his statements on the ground that they were involuntarily made is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit (see People v. Salierno, 30 A.D.3d 546, 547, 817 N.Y.S.2d 355 ).
RIVERA, J.P., BALKIN, MALTESE and BARROS, JJ., concur.