People v. Guo Yan Zheng

• Decision Date: 22 November 1999
• Citation: 698 N.Y.S.2d 533
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. GUO YAN ZHENG, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 533

698 N.Y.S.2d 533

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. GUO YAN ZHENG, appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

Second Department, New York.

Nov. 22, 1999.

M. Sue Wycoff, New York, N.Y. (Daniel Hsiung of counsel), for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Nicoletta J. Caferri, and Joan Yang of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Naro, J.), rendered November 20, 1996, convicting him of kidnapping in the first degree (four counts), burglary in the first degree, robbery in the first degree (three counts), robbery in the second degree (three counts), assault in the second degree (four counts) and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Clabby, J.), of those branches of the defendant's omnibus motion which were to suppress statements made by him to law enforcement officials and physical evidence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant did not demonstrate that he had a right of privacy in the premises searched. He therefore had no standing to raise a challenge to the constitutionality of the search (see, People v. Ponder, 54 N.Y.2d 160, 445 N.Y.S.2d 57, 429 N.E.2d 735; People v. Lerhinan, 90 A.D.2d 74, 455 N.Y.S.2d 822). The People properly raised the issue of standing for the first time on appeal, since it was the defendant's burden, in the first instance, to establish that he had standing (see, People v. Poree, 240 A.D.2d 597, 661 N.Y.S.2d 12; People v. Jackson, 207 A.D.2d 805, 616 N.Y.S.2d 530).

Furthermore, the Supreme Court correctly found the defendant's confession to be admissible. The defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to refuse to give a statement (see, People v. Ridgeway, 101 A.D.2d 555, 476 N.Y.S.2d 940, affd. 64 N.Y.2d 952, 488 N.Y.S.2d 641, 477 N.E.2d 1095; see also, People v. McDowell, 202 A.D.2d 1021, 609 N.Y.S.2d 985; People v. Slaughter, 163 A.D.2d 342, 345-346, 557 N.Y.S.2d 926).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.

RITTER, J.P., JOY, GOLDSTEIN, and McGINITY, JJ., concur.