People v. Grice

• Decision Date: 29 April 2002
• Docket Number: 2,99-01915
• Parties: The People, etc., respondent, v Terrill Grice, appellant. (Ind./98) 1999-01915 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION: SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT Argued -
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

The People, etc., respondent, v Terrill Grice, appellant.

(Ind. No. 218/98)

1999-01915

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE DIVISION: SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Argued - April 8, 2002

Decided on April 29, 2002

Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Lisa Napoli of counsel), for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, and Traci R. Wilkerson of counsel), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER

DAVID S. RITTER, J.P.

SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN

GLORIA GOLDSTEIN

BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Katz, J.), rendered January 6, 1999, convicting him of burglary in the first degree (two counts), burglary in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Latella, J.), 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.

The hearing court properly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress two written statements that he made to the police. The hearing court correctly found that the defendant's right to counsel had not attached before he made the statements and that the statements were voluntary (see generally, People v Pulliam, A.D.2d [2d Dept, Mar. 4, 2002]; People v Lennon, 243 A.D.2d 495; People v Cameron, 167 Misc.2d 61, 68-69; cf. People v Garofolo, 46 N.Y.2d 592; People v Pinzon, 44 N.Y.2d 458). The hearing court's finding should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see People v Davis, 221 A.D.2d 358; People v Garafolo, 44 A.D.2d 86, 88). As the record supports the hearing court's determination, we agree that there was no basis for suppressing the statements.

RITTER, J.P., FEUERSTEIN, GOLDSTEIN and COZIER, JJ., concur.