Opinion
January 27, 1994
Appeal from the County Court of Broome County (Smith, J.).
Defendant voluntarily accompanied the police from the scene of a fire to the police station where he was read his Miranda rights. He acknowledged that he understood his rights, signed a waiver and agreed to talk to the police without an attorney. He then made oral admissions and gave the police a signed confession. At the conclusion of a Huntley hearing, County Court found that defendant's oral and written statements were freely and voluntarily made after he was advised of his Miranda rights, which he understood and waived. Subsequently, defendant entered a plea of guilty of the crime of arson in the third degree and, after his motion to withdraw his plea was denied, he was sentenced as a second felony offender to a term of imprisonment of 4 1/2 to 9 years. This appeal ensued. We affirm.
We shall not disturb County Court's resolution, as the trier of fact, of the credibility issue created at the Huntley hearing by the conflicting testimony on defendant's claim that he requested a lawyer during his interrogation, inasmuch as the court's determination that defendant did not make such a request is supported by the record (see, People v. Walker, 191 A.D.2d 603, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 1021). Defendant's further argument that his 6th Amendment right to counsel was violated when the police continued to question him after learning he had a prior criminal charge pending against him is unavailing because the crime here was unrelated to the previously charged crime (see, People v Bing, 76 N.Y.2d 331, 349-350). Defendant's claim that he was illegally detained has not been preserved for our review as it was not raised at the Huntley hearing (see, People v. Harrell, 59 N.Y.2d 620, 621). Lastly, we find that County Court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion to withdraw his plea because defendant did not present any evidence or claim of innocence, fraud or mistake in inducing the plea (see, People v. Batts, 179 A.D.2d 937; People v. Cance, 155 A.D.2d 764, 764-765).
Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Casey and Weiss, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.