People v. Lewis

• Decision Date: 10 November 2011
• Citation: 89 A.D.3d 1485,2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 08067,932 N.Y.S.2d 663
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,v.Joel A. LEWIS, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

89 A.D.3d 1485

932 N.Y.S.2d 663

2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 08067

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,

v.Joel A. LEWIS, Defendant–Appellant.

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

Nov. 10, 2011.

Theodore W. Stenuf, Minoa, for Defendant–Appellant.Donald H. Dodd, District Attorney, Oswego (Michael G. Cianfarano of Counsel), for Respondent.PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.MEMORANDUM:

On appeal from a judgment convicting him, following his plea of guilty, of burglary in the second degree (Penal Law § 140.25[2] ), defendant contends that County Court erred in refusing to suppress physical evidence taken from him by the police as well as statements that he made to the police. We reject that contention. The evidence adduced at the suppression hearing established that the police had the authority to arrest defendant for operating a motor vehicle while his registration was suspended or revoked, a misdemeanor (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 512; see People v. Brown, 306 A.D.2d 291, 760 N.Y.S.2d 348, lv. denied 100 N.Y.2d 618, 767 N.Y.S.2d 401, 799 N.E.2d 624). Thus, the police had the authority to conduct a search incident to his arrest ( see People v. Troiano, 35 N.Y.2d 476, 478, 363 N.Y.S.2d 943, 323 N.E.2d 183). We further note that any statements made by defendant before he was advised of his Miranda rights were spontaneous and were not the result of questioning or conduct reasonably likely to elicit any statements ( see People v. Huffman, 61 N.Y.2d 795, 797, 473 N.Y.S.2d 945, 462 N.E.2d 122). With respect to the statements following the administration of Miranda rights, we defer to the court's credibility determination that defendant understood his Miranda rights and knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived them before agreeing to speak to the police and to provide a written statement ( see People v. Twillie, 28 A.D.3d 1236, 1237, 813 N.Y.S.2d 626, lv. denied 7 N.Y.3d 795, 821 N.Y.S.2d 825, 854 N.E.2d 1290).

Defendant failed to object to the imposition of restitution at sentencing and failed to request a restitution hearing and thus has failed to preserve for our review his contention that the court erred in ordering him to pay restitution ( see People v. Lovett, 8 A.D.3d 1007, 778 N.Y.S.2d 243, lv. denied 3 N.Y.3d 673, 677, 784 N.Y.S.2d 12, 15, 817 N.E.2d 830, 833). Nevertheless, we exercise our power to review his contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, particularly because the court stated at the plea hearing that restitution was not being sought ( cf. People...