People v. Martinez

• Decision Date: 12 September 2018
• Docket Number: Ind. No. 15–00696,2016–04696
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Miguel MARTINEZ, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

164 A.D.3d 1260
83 N.Y.S.3d 677

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,
v.
Miguel MARTINEZ, appellant.

2016–04696
Ind. No. 15–00696

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

Submitted—February 26, 2018
Decided September 12, 2018

83 N.Y.S.3d 678

Christine Moccia, Chappaqua, NY, for appellant.

Anthony A. Scarpino, Jr., District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Christine DiSalvo and William C. Milaccio, Kew Gardens, of counsel), for respondent.

ALAN D. SCHEINKMAN, P.J., JEFFREY A. COHEN, COLLEEN D. DUFFY, ANGELA G. IANNACCI, JJ.

83 N.Y.S.3d 679

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Robert A. Neary, J.), rendered March 30, 2016, as amended on July 6, 2016, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree, grand larceny in the fourth degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, 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 statements he made to law enforcement officials.

ORDERED that the judgment, as amended, is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the police had probable cause to arrest him based on the statement of his codefendant, who admitted her participation in the crimes for which she and the defendant were indicted, provided details of the crimes which matched the details in statements made by the victim, and incriminated the defendant (see People v. Jackson, 65 A.D.3d 1164, 1165, 885 N.Y.S.2d 213 ; People v. Catanzaro, 236 A.D.2d 418, 654 N.Y.S.2d 330 ).

The defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights (see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 ) prior to making his statement. Although the police falsely informed the defendant that there was a video camera in an alley in the vicinity of the crime scene, and that they possessed surveillance video from that video camera that showed the defendant to be the perpetrator of the subject crimes, the defendant made no showing that the deception was so fundamentally unfair as to deny him due process (see People v. Tarsia, 50 N.Y.2d 1, 12, 427 N.Y.S.2d 944, 405 N.E.2d 188 ; People v. Holley, 148 A.D.3d 1605, 1606, 51 N.Y.S.3d 735 ; People v. Dishaw, 30 A.D.3d 689, 690–691, 816 N.Y.S.2d 235 ; People v. Dickson, 260 A.D.2d 931, 932, 690 N.Y.S.2d 282 ; People v. Jackson, 140 A.D.2d 458, 459, 528 N.Y.S.2d 158 ).

The defendant's allegation that he was intoxicated at the time he confessed did not render his statement involuntary. "Intoxication alone is insufficient to render a statement involuntary [internal citation omitted]. Only where it is demonstrated that defendant was intoxicated to a degree of mania or of being unable to understand the meaning of his statements is suppression warranted" ( People v. Benjamin, 17 A.D.3d 688, 689, 793 N.Y.S.2d 547 ). In this case, the defendant failed to establish that he was intoxicated to such a degree.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621, 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. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the...