PEOPLE v. MARTIN (2002)

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial of robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15[1] ) and assault in the first degree (§ 120.10[4] ).   We reject the contention of defendant that County Court erred in not suppressing his written statements on the ground that those statements were elicited in violation of his Miranda rights and were involuntarily made.   The suppression court's assessment of credibility is entitled to great weight (see People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761, 395 N.Y.S.2d 635, 363 N.E.2d 1380;  People v. Moore, 295 A.D.2d 969, 743 N.Y.S.2d 922), and that determination should not be disturbed unless clearly erroneous (see Moore, 295 A.D.2d at 969, 743 N.Y.S.2d 922;  People v. Holmes, 284 A.D.2d 984, 728 N.Y.S.2d 611, lv. denied 96 N.Y.2d 919, 732 N.Y.S.2d 636, 758 N.E.2d 662).   Here, the suppression hearing testimony of the interrogating police officer establishes that those statements were preceded by Miranda warnings and that, prior to being given the warnings, defendant was not in custody.   In addition, the People established that the circumstances surrounding defendant's interrogation did not constitute such a coercive and intimidating environment that defendant's will was overborne (see generally People v. Anderson, 42 N.Y.2d 35, 37-41, 396 N.Y.S.2d 625, 364 N.E.2d 1318;  People v. Mitchell, 289 A.D.2d 776, 778-779, 734 N.Y.S.2d 353, lv. denied 98 N.Y.2d 653, 745 N.Y.S.2d 512, 772 N.E.2d 615).

Defendant's challenge to the court's charge on voluntariness is unpreserved for our review and, in any event, is lacking in merit.   The court properly denied defendant's Batson challenge (see Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69) to the prosecutor's exercise of a peremptory strike against a single African-American prospective juror.   The record establishes that the prospective juror made some statements and exhibited a demeanor that called into question her ability to serve as an impartial juror.   The court thus properly concluded that the prosecutor's explanation for the strike was race-neutral (see People v. Cuthrell, 284 A.D.2d 982, 726 N.Y.S.2d 903;  People v. Sell, 283 A.D.2d 920, 921, 725 N.Y.S.2d 486, lv. denied 96 N.Y.2d 867, 730 N.Y.S.2d 42, 754 N.E.2d 1125;  People v. Hinds, 270 A.D.2d 891, 705 N.Y.S.2d 463, lv. denied 95 N.Y.2d 964, 722 N.Y.S.2d 482, 745 N.E.2d 402).

The court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's request for a substitution of counsel in the absence of a showing of good cause for the substitution (see People v. Sides, 75 N.Y.2d 822, 824, 552 N.Y.S.2d 555, 551 N.E.2d 1233;  People v. Youngblood, 294 A.D.2d 954, 955, 742 N.Y.S.2d 762, lv. denied 98 N.Y.2d 704, 747 N.Y.S.2d 423, 776 N.E.2d 12;  People v. Johnson, 292 A.D.2d 871, 738 N.Y.S.2d 916, lv. denied 98 N.Y.2d 652, 745 N.Y.S.2d 511, 772 N.E.2d 614;  People v. Burgos, 291 A.D.2d 904, 738 N.Y.S.2d 268, lv. denied 97 N.Y.2d 751, 742 N.Y.S.2d 611, 769 N.E.2d 357).   The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: