Opinion
01-02-2015
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Muridi MOHAMED, Defendant–Appellant. (Appeal No. 1.).
The Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc., Buffalo (Kristin M. Preve of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Frank A. Sedita, III, District Attorney, Buffalo (Ashley R. Lowry of Counsel), for Respondent.
The Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc., Buffalo (Kristin M. Preve of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant.
Frank A. Sedita, III, District Attorney, Buffalo (Ashley R. Lowry of Counsel), for Respondent.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, VALENTINO, and WHALEN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM: In appeal No. 1, defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of robbery in the second degree ( Penal Law § 160.10[1] ) and, in appeal No. 2, defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a nonjury verdict of manslaughter in the first degree (§ 125.20[1] ).
With respect to appeal No. 2, viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crime in this nonjury trial (see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 ), we conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Goley, 113 A.D.3d 1083, 1084, 977 N.Y.S.2d 847 ; see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 ). " ‘In a bench trial, no less than a jury trial, the resolution of credibility issues by the trier of fact and its determination of the weight to be accorded the evidence presented are entitled to great deference’ " ( People v. McCoy, 100 A.D.3d 1422, 1422, 953 N.Y.S.2d 788 ), and we perceive no reason to disturb County Court's credibility determinations.
Defendant contends in appeal No. 2 that the court erred in refusing to suppress his statements to the police on the ground that he did not voluntarily waive his Miranda rights because he was unable to understand the Miranda warnings recited to him in English. We reject that contention. The record of the Huntley hearing " ‘supports [the court's] determination that defendant understood the meaning of the Miranda warnings prior to waiving his rights' " ( People v. Valle, 70 A.D.3d 1386, 1387, 894 N.Y.S.2d 683, lv. denied 15 N.Y.3d 758, 906 N.Y.S.2d 831, 933 N.E.2d 230 ; see People v. Gerena, 49 A.D.3d 1204, 1205, 854 N.Y.S.2d 614, lv. denied 10 N.Y.3d 958, 863 N.Y.S.2d 142, 893 N.E.2d 448 ). We further conclude in appeal No. 2 that defendant was not denied effective assistance of counsel (see generally People v. Stultz, 2 N.Y.3d 277, 282, 778 N.Y.S.2d 431, 810 N.E.2d 883, rearg. denied 3 N.Y.3d 702, 785 N.Y.S.2d 29, 818 N.E.2d 671 ; People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400 ).
In both appeals, defendant contends that the court erred in failing to determine whether he was eligible for youthful offender status. As the People correctly concede, defendant is an eligible youth, and the sentencing court must make "a youthful offender determination in every case where the defendant is eligible, even where the defendant fails to request it" ( People v.
Rudolph, 21 N.Y.3d 497, 501, 974 N.Y.S.2d 885, 997 N.E.2d 457 ; see People v. Scott, 115 A.D.3d 1342, 1343, 983 N.Y.S.2d 386 ; People v. Smith, 112 A.D.3d 1334, 1334, 978 N.Y.S.2d 504 ). We therefore hold the case in each appeal, reserve decision, and remit the matter to County Court to make and state for the record a determination in each appeal whether defendant should be afforded youthful offender status (see Rudolph, 21 N.Y.3d at 503, 974 N.Y.S.2d 885, 997 N.E.2d 457 ; People v. Hall, 119 A.D.3d 1349, 1350, 990 N.Y.S.2d 384 ).
It is hereby ORDERED that the case is held, the decision is reserved and the matter is remitted to Erie County Court for further proceedings.