People v. White

• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Writing for the Court: Before LEVINE
• Citation: People v. White, 588 N.Y.S.2d 201, 186 A.D.2d 321 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
• Decision Date: 24 September 1992
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Curtis A. WHITE, Appellant.

Page 201

588 N.Y.S.2d 201

186 A.D.2d 321

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Curtis A. WHITE, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Department.

Sept. 24, 1992.

Smyk, Smyk & Fahrenz (Joseph F. Cawley, of counsel), Binghamton, for appellant.

Gerald F. Mollen, Dist. Atty. (Joann Rose Parry, of counsel), Binghamton, for respondent.

Before LEVINE, J.P., and MERCURE, MAHONEY, CASEY and HARVEY, JJ.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Smith, J.), rendered April 25, 1991, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of burglary in the second degree.

We find that the delay in defendant's arraignment was justified in light of the ongoing investigation of crimes other than those for which defendant was originally arrested (see, People v. Hopkins, 58 N.Y.2d 1079, 462 N.Y.S.2d 639, 449 N.E.2d 419; People v. Barker, 168 A.D.2d 211, 562 N.Y.S.2d 97, lv. denied 77 N.Y.2d 875, 568 N.Y.S.2d 918, 571 N.E.2d 88; People v. Borazzo, 137 A.D.2d 96, 528 N.Y.S.2d 99, lv. denied 72 N.Y.2d 916, 532 N.Y.S.2d 850, 529 N.E.2d 180). Further, we find that the brief, unproductive interrogation of defendant upon being processed at the police station before he was read his Miranda warnings does not require suppression of statements made after defendant had been properly informed of his constitutional rights. Defendant was in a jail cell from the time of the initial questioning until he was questioned eight hours later by a different police officer. Thus, the interrogations did not constitute a continuous chain of events; rather, defendant had an opportunity reflect upon his situation (see, People v. Bethea, 67 N.Y.2d 364, 502 N.Y.S.2d 713, 493 N.E.2d 937; People v. Holmes, 145 A.D.2d 908, 536 N.Y.S.2d 289, lv. denied 74 N.Y.2d 897, 548 N.Y.S.2d 430, 547 N.E.2d 957; People v. Jacobs, 136 A.D.2d 796, 523 N.Y.S.2d 256). Nor did defendant make any unwarned statement that could be said to have committed him to later confessing to the crime (see, People v. Tanner, 30 N.Y.2d 102, 331 N.Y.S.2d 1, 282 N.E.2d 98; People v. Holmes, supra ). Finally, County Court's determinations that defendant did not request an attorney and that he was informed of his constitutional rights prior to making an inculpatory statement were based upon credibility issues and should be upheld where, as here, they are not clearly erroneous (see, People v. Ceballos, 175 A.D.2d 315, 572 N.Y.S.2d 84, lv. denied 78 N.Y.2d 1074, ...