People v. Alvarenga

190 A.D.3d 762

135 N.Y.S.3d 860 (Mem)

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,

v.Pablo ALVARENGA, appellant.

2019–03771

Ind.No. 1426/18

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Argued—December 17, 2020

January 13, 2021

Laurette D. Mulry, Riverhead, N.Y. (Felice B. Milani of counsel), for appellant.

Timothy D. Sini, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Rosalind C. Gray and Marion Tang of counsel), for respondent.

WILLIAM F. MASTRO, A.P.J., REINALDO E. RIVERA, ROBERT J. MILLER, COLLEEN D. DUFFY, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Karen M. Wilutis, J.), rendered March 13, 2019, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, burglary in the second degree as a sexually motivated felony, attempted rape in the first degree, and intimidating a victim in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress his statements to law enforcement officials.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

We agree with the County Court's determination, made after a Huntley hearing (see People v. Huntley, 15 N.Y.2d 72, 255 N.Y.S.2d 838, 204 N.E.2d 179 ), denying that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress his oral and written statements to law enforcement officials. The record establishes that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 prior to making his statements (see People v. Torres, 177 A.D.3d 579, 113 N.Y.S.3d 707 ; People v. Capela, 97 A.D.3d 760, 761, 948 N.Y.S.2d 423 ; see also People v. Martinez, 68 A.D.3d 1757, 1758, 891 N.Y.S.2d 811 ). The evidence presented at the suppression hearing demonstrated that an officer translated the Miranda rights into Spanish for the Spanish-speaking defendant and that the defendant's written statement was read back to him in Spanish before he signed and adopted the statement as his own (see People v. Zelaya, 170 A.D.3d 1206, 1207, 96 N.Y.S.3d 683 ; People v. Mora, 57 A.D.3d 571, 572, 868 N.Y.S.2d 722 ).

The defendant's further contention that the County Court erred in denying that branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress his statements because law enforcement officials failed to videotape his statements is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ) and, in any event, without merit.

MASTRO...