People v. Jackson

• Decision Date: 21 July 1997
• Citation: 241 A.D.2d 526,663 N.Y.S.2d 988
• Parties: , 1997 N.Y. Slip Op. 6872 The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Nahshon JACKSON, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 988

663 N.Y.S.2d 988

241 A.D.2d 526, 1997 N.Y. Slip Op. 6872

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Nahshon JACKSON, Appellant.

Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division Second Department.

July 21, 1997.

Nahshon Jackson, Stormville, appellant pro se.

James M. Catterson, Jr., District Attorney, Riverhead (Michael Blakey, of counsel), for respondent.

Robert C. Mitchell, Riverhead (Anna M. Perry, of counsel), for appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Tisch, J.), rendered January 25, 1995, convicting him of murder in the second degree and robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for the review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress statements made by him to law enforcement authorities.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Having failed to argue before the hearing court that his statements to law enforcement authorities should be suppressed as the product of police coercion and abuse, the defendant's contention in this regard is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Claudio, 64 N.Y.2d 858, 487 N.Y.S.2d 318, 476 N.E.2d 644; People v. Tutt, 38 N.Y.2d 1011, 384 N.Y.S.2d 444, 348 N.E.2d 920; People v. Manuli, 156 A.D.2d 388, 548 N.Y.S.2d 340; 156 A.D.2d 388, 548 N.Y.S.2d 341). In any event, the court properly denied suppression of the statements inasmuch as the evidence adduced at the hearing established that they were made after the defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights (see, People v. Huntley, 15 N.Y.2d 72, 255 N.Y.S.2d 838, 204 N.E.2d 179; People v. Springer, 221 A.D.2d 386, 633 N.Y.S.2d 508).

Also unpreserved for appellate review is the defendant's contention that his conviction was not supported by legally sufficient evidence (see, CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Cannon, 224 A.D.2d 439, 638 N.Y.S.2d 324). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see, Penal Law § 125.25[3]; § 160.15[4] ). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15[5] ).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v. Brooks, 209 A.D.2d 427, 619 N.Y.S.2d 605; People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit (see, People v. Taranovich, 37 N.Y.2d 442, 373...