People v. Schluter

• Decision Date: 11 February 2016
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Michael D. SCHLUTER, Defendant–Appellant. (Appeal No. 1.)
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

136 A.D.3d 1363
24 N.Y.S.3d 478

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Michael D. SCHLUTER, Defendant–Appellant. (Appeal No. 1.)

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

Feb. 11, 2016.

24 N.Y.S.3d 478

Timothy P. Donaher, Public Defender, Rochester (David R. Juergens of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant.

Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Nancy Gilligan of Counsel), for Respondent.

PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., CENTRA, PERADOTTO, CARNI, AND SCUDDER, JJ.

24 N.Y.S.3d 479

MEMORANDUM:

136 A.D.3d 1363

In appeal No. 1, defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of, inter alia, course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.75[1][b] ) and, in appeal No. 2, he appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal sexual act in the third degree (§ 130.40[2] ).

Contrary to defendant's contention in appeal No. 1, County Court properly refused to suppress statements defendant made to the police during a recorded interrogation. Defendant waived his Miranda rights at the outset of the interrogation, but he contends that his waiver was rendered invalid by police conduct during the interrogation. Defendant failed to raise that specific contention in his motion papers or at the suppression hearing as a ground for suppressing his statements, and thus he failed to preserve that contention for our review (see People v. Brown, 120 A.D.3d 954, 955, 990 N.Y.S.2d 755, lv. denied 24 N.Y.3d 1118, 3 N.Y.S.3d 760, 27 N.E.3d 474 ). In

136 A.D.3d 1364

any event, we reject his contention "that the validity of the waiver was vitiated by police conduct that occurred after the waiver" (Matter of Jimmy D., 15 N.Y.3d 417, 424, 912 N.Y.S.2d 537, 938 N.E.2d...