Opinion
December 3, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Feldman, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contentions, a review of the totality of the circumstances (see, People v. Anderson, 42 N.Y.2d 35) reveals that his confession was voluntarily obtained (see, People v. Hamilton, 138 A.D.2d 625). After learning of the defendant's complicity in this dual homicide and robbery case from a confidential informant, the investigating detectives left word with the defendant's acquaintances, that they wanted to speak with him. He evidently received this message because he voluntarily appeared at the police station (see, People v. Glasper, 160 A.D.2d 723). He was advised of his Miranda rights which he voluntarily, knowingly and intentionally waived. After a brief noncustodial interrogation, the defendant offered a full confession to shooting the decedent during the commission of an armed robbery (see, People v. Proctor, 135 A.D.2d 751; People v. Benitez, 128 A.D.2d 628). Despite the defendant's possible subjective feelings of intimidation by the interrogating officers, their actions did not rise to the level of coercion (cf., People v. Anderson, supra; People v. Leonard, 59 A.D.2d 1). Moreover, notwithstanding the defendant's unsupported claims of physical abuse, the record amply supports the hearing court's determination that the confession was voluntary (see, People v. Glasper, supra; People v. Hamilton, supra; People v. Gagne, 129 A.D.2d 808).
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit (see, e.g., People v. Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396; People v. Turcius-Umana, 153 A.D.2d 707; People v. Younis, 144 A.D.2d 964; People v. Rawlings, 144 A.D.2d 500; People v. Crawford, 130 A.D.2d 678). Balletta, J.P., Miller, O'Brien and Ritter, JJ., concur.