People v. DeCampoamor

• Citation: 2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 00224,936 N.Y.S.2d 256,91 A.D.3d 669
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Fernando DeCAMPOAMOR, appellant.
• Decision Date: 10 January 2012
• Court: New York Supreme Court Appellate Division

2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 00224
91 A.D.3d 669
936 N.Y.S.2d 256

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,
v.
Fernando DeCAMPOAMOR, appellant.

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

Jan. 10, 2012.

[936 N.Y.S.2d 257]

Steven A. Feldman, Uniondale, N.Y. (Arza Feldman of counsel), for appellant.

Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Michael J. Miller of counsel), for respondent.

THOMAS A. DICKERSON, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, L. PRISCILLA HALL, and ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.

[91 A.D.3d 670] Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), rendered December 4, 2008, convicting him of murder in the first degree and murder in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, 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 oral and written statements to law enforcement officials.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, his oral and written statements were properly admitted into evidence. The totality of the circumstances demonstrated that the defendant's statements were made voluntarily ( see People v. Anderson, 42 N.Y.2d 35, 38, 396 N.Y.S.2d 625, 364 N.E.2d 1318; People v. Gega, 74 A.D.3d 1229, 1231, 904 N.Y.S.2d 716). The defendant appeared of his own volition at a police precinct seeking to file a complaint against a person who, in a televised interview, accused him of committing the murders. He was met by two detectives who asked him if he wanted to accompany them back to police headquarters to speak with the lead detective about the case. The defendant indicated that he did, and he rode in the back of the detectives' vehicle unrestrained ( see People v. D'Amico, 296 A.D.2d 579, 745 N.Y.S.2d 722). Although the interview that ensued was lengthy, that fact, without more, does not render the defendant's statements involuntary ( see People v. Alexander, 51 A.D.3d 1380, 1381, 857 N.Y.S.2d 418). The defendant was advised of and waived his Miranda rights ( see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694) before all questioning and again before giving his written statement. He was afforded several breaks, provided food and water, and permitted to use the bathroom ( see People v. Bryan, 43 A.D.3d 447, 448, 842 N.Y.S.2d 29; People v. Hasty, 25 A.D.3d 740, 741, 807 N.Y.S.2d 647). Under these circumstances, the lead detective's testimony at the hearing that the defendant never indicated he was tired and needed a break was not incredible or patently tailored to nullify constitutional objections ( see People v. Rivera, 27 A.D.3d 489, 490, 812 N.Y.S.2d 575; People v. Curry, 213 A.D.2d 664, 624 N.Y.S.2d 234). Although the defendant now contends that the police unnecessarily delayed in arraigning him for the purpose of obtaining his statements in violation of CPL 140.20(1), which bears on the issue of voluntariness, the defendant failed to preserve this contention for appellate review, thereby depriving the People of an opportunity to put forth other reasons for the alleged delay in arraignment ( see People v. Ramos, 99 N.Y.2d 27, 37, 750 N.Y.S.2d 821, 780 N.E.2d 506; People v. Hayward, 48 A.D.3d...