People v. Battle

• Decision Date: 23 December 2021
• Docket Number: 2021-07419
• Court: New York Supreme Court
• Parties: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, v. SHAQUILL BATTLE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,
v.
SHAQUILL BATTLE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

No. 2021-07419

Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

December 23, 2021

THE ABBATOY LAW FIRM, PLLC, ROCHESTER (DAVID M. ABBATOY, JR., OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (SCOTT MYLES OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CARNI, NEMOYER, CURRAN, AND BANNISTER, JJ.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Joanne M. Winslow, J.), rendered June 23, 2015. The judgment convicted defendant upon a jury verdict of murder in the second degree.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25 [3] [felony murder]) in connection with the shooting death of the victim that occurred during a robbery or attempted robbery. We affirm.

Defendant contends that Supreme Court erred in refusing to suppress statements that he made to the police during an interrogation. Specifically, he argues that the challenged statements should have been suppressed because he was arrested without probable cause, he did not validly waive his Miranda rights, and the length of his detention rendered his statements involuntary. We reject those contentions. The police had probable cause to arrest defendant because they "had information sufficient to support a reasonable belief that an offense ha[d] been... committed by defendant" (People v Collins, 106 A.D.3d 1544, 1545 [4th Dept 2013], lv denied 21 N.Y.3d 1072 [2013] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Shulman, 6 N.Y.3d 1, 25 [2005], cert denied 547 U.S. 1043 [2006]), i.e., "statements [of one of his accomplices] implicating him in the crime" (People v Mills, 137 A.D.3d 1690, 1690 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 27 N.Y.3d 1136 [2016] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Berzups, 49 N.Y.2d 417, 427 [1980], rearg denied 73 N.Y.2d 866 [1989]; People v Luciano, 43 A.D.3d 1183, 1183 [2d Dept 2007], lv denied 9 N.Y.3d 991 [2007]). Contrary to defendant's contention, the accomplice's statements did not lack indicia of reliability inasmuch as they were against the accomplice's penal interest (see People v Fulton, 133 A.D.3d 1194, 1195 [4th Dept 2015], lv denied 26 N.Y.3d 1109 [2016], reconsideration denied 27 N.Y.3d 997 [2016]; People v Brito, 59 A.D.3d 1000, 1000 [4th Dept 2009], lv denied 12 N.Y.3d 814 [2009]).

To the extent that defendant challenges the validity of his Miranda waiver, we conclude that the video of the interrogation established that, at the very least, defendant implicitly waived his rights by agreeing to speak to the police immediately after the investigator read to him the Miranda warnings and after defendant confirmed that he understood his rights (see People v Wallace, 153 A.D.3d 1632, 1634 [4th Dept 2017]; People v Harris, 129 A.D.3d 1522, 1523 [4th Dept 2015], lv denied 27 N.Y.3d 998 [2016]; see generally People v Sirno, 76 N.Y.2d 967, 968 [1990]). We likewise reject defendant's contention that his statements were rendered involuntary due to the length of his detention (see People v Huff...