Opinion
March 2, 1987
Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Delin, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant claims that his written and videotaped statements were involuntarily obtained. However, the hearing court's finding to the contrary has ample support in the record and, therefore, should not be disturbed (see, People v. Spivack, 111 A.D.2d 884; People v. Armstead, 98 A.D.2d 726). The defendant, who was then 16 years old, was advised of his Miranda rights in the presence of his father shortly after they voluntarily arrived at the precinct professing a desire to cooperate with law enforcement personnel. Even though the defendant was subsequently questioned by police officers and an Assistant District Attorney outside of his father's presence, this was done with his father's consent. "Absent evidence that the police intentionally deprived the defendant of access to his family in an effort to bar his exercise of his right to counsel and to obtain a confession, there is no infringement on the defendant's rights" (People v. Fuschino, 59 N.Y.2d 91, 100; cf., People v. Bevilacqua, 45 N.Y.2d 508; People v. Townsend, 33 N.Y.2d 37). We have considered the many other arguments advanced by the defendant to support his claim and find that under the totality of the circumstances, they do not negate the conclusion that the defendant's statements were voluntarily and freely obtained (see, People v. Anderson, 42 N.Y.2d 35, 38; People v. Spivack, supra).
The defendant also claims that his plea was improperly accepted by the trial court. By failing to move to withdraw his plea prior to sentencing, the defendant has not preserved the issue of the plea allocution's sufficiency for appellate review (see, People v. Fuentes, 125 A.D.2d 328). In any event, the plea allocution clearly established a sufficient factual basis for the court's acceptance of his guilty plea (see, People v. Francis, 38 N.Y.2d 150; People v. Foster, 19 N.Y.2d 150; People v. Serrano, 15 N.Y.2d 304; People v. Langhorn, 119 A.D.2d 844).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Mollen, P.J., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Sullivan, JJ., concur.