People v. Santiago, 2

• Decision Date: 17 December 2001
• Docket Number: 99-09663,2
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Parties: THE PEOPLE, ETC., RESPONDENT, v. MARIA SANTIAGO, APPELLANT. (IND. NO. 12139/98) 1999-09663 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION: SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT Submitted -

THE PEOPLE, ETC., RESPONDENT, v. MARIA SANTIAGO, APPELLANT.

(IND. NO. 12139/98)

1999-09663

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE DIVISION: SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Submitted - June 1, 2001

December 17, 2001

Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (David P. Greenberg of counsel), for appellant.

Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Ann Bordley of counsel), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER

Cornelius J. O'Brien, J.P.

Sondra Miller

Robert W. Schmidt

Barry A. Cozier, JJ.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (J. Goldberg, J.), rendered October 6, 1999, convicting her of murder in the second degree and falsely reporting an incident in the third degree (two counts), 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 her statements to law enforcement authorities.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that her statements to law enforcement authorities on December 5, 1998, should have been suppressed because an unnecessary delay in her arraignment deprived her of the right to counsel is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Bartley, 230 A.D.2d 748, 749; People v. Silas, 158 A.D.2d 561, 562). In any event, her contention is without merit. There is no evidence that the arraignment was delayed for the purpose of depriving her of the right to counsel (see, People v. Mosley, 135 A.D.2d 662, 664; People v. Marinelli, 238 A.D.2d 525, 526; People v. Faison, 265 A.D.2d 422, 423; People v. Henry, 186 A.D.2d 986; People v. Wheeler, 123 A.D.2d 411, 412).

The defendant's argument that her first statement on December 5, 1998, should have been suppressed is unpersuasive in light of the evidence that she twice waived her Miranda rights on the previous day and that she was in continuous police custody leading up to that statement (see, People v. Thomas, 233 A.D.2d 347, 348; People v. Baker, 208 A.D.2d 758; People v. Crosby, 91 A.D.2d 20, 30).

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.

O'BRIEN, J.P., S. MILLER, SCHMIDT and COZIER, JJ., concur.