People v. Rydell

• Decision Date: 22 August 1991
• Citation: 573 N.Y.S.2d 536,175 A.D.2d 956
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Jeanne RYDELL, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 536

573 N.Y.S.2d 536

175 A.D.2d 956

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Jeanne RYDELL, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

Aug. 22, 1991.

Paul Gruner (Denise Y. Dourdeville, of counsel), Kingston, for appellant.

Michael Kavanagh, Dist. Atty. (Joan Gudesblatt Lamb, of counsel), Kingston, for respondent.

Before MIKOLL, J.P., and LEVINE, MERCURE, CREW and HARVEY, JJ.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Vogt, J.), rendered June 5, 1990, convicting defendant upon her plea of guilty of the crime of burglary in the second degree.

Defendant's only contention on appeal is that County Court erred in failing to suppress certain statements that she claims were the fruits of an illegal detention. The record reveals, however, that defendant voluntarily accompanied the State Troopers to the police barracks and that, at the time the questioning commenced, she was not in custody and was free to leave (see, People v. Centeno, 76 N.Y.2d 837, 838, 560 N.Y.S.2d 121, 559 N.E.2d 1280; People v. Anderson, 145 A.D.2d 939, 940, 536 N.Y.S.2d 616, lv. denied 73 N.Y.2d 974, 540 N.Y.S.2d 1008, 538 N.E.2d 360). Neither the fact that she was a suspect in a burglary investigation nor that she was advised of her Miranda warnings prior to the interview establishes to the contrary (see, People v. Basso, 140 A.D.2d 448, 449-450, 528 N.Y.S.2d 150). While defendant was present at the police barracks, the police obtained a statement from Theresa Van Zile which implicated defendant in the burglary, providing probable cause for defendant's subsequent arrest. The testimony of two State Troopers also indicates that defendant was given and understood her Miranda rights, and any contrary testimony merely presented a question of credibility for County Court to resolve (see, People v. Munhall, 92 A.D.2d 1060, 1061, 461 N.Y.S.2d 566). Under the circumstances, County Court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.