PEOPLE v. SHEPARD (2004)

 Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of burglary in the first degree (Penal Law § 140.30[1] ).   Contrary to the contention of defendant, County Court properly denied his motion to suppress the statements that he made to the police.   Defendant had informed the police that he was the victim of a shooting in the City of Auburn, and his initial statements were made at that time, when he was not a suspect.   Thus, no Miranda warnings were required with respect to those statements (see generally People v. Brown [Sterling], 295 A.D.2d 442, 743 N.Y.S.2d 554, lv. denied 99 N.Y.2d 580, 755 N.Y.S.2d 716, 785 N.E.2d 738).   Defendant also sought suppression of his subsequent statements, made after Miranda warnings were administered.   Contrary to the contention of defendant, the fact that he had sustained a gunshot wound does not by itself render his subsequent statements involuntary (see People v. Howard, 256 A.D.2d 1170, 683 N.Y.S.2d 445, lv. denied 93 N.Y.2d 874, 689 N.Y.S.2d 436, 711 N.E.2d 650).   Defendant testified at the suppression hearing that he understood his Miranda rights, and there was no evidence at the hearing that he “lack[ed] mental capacity, that is, he was unable to appreciate the nature and consequences of his statements,” based on the medication given to him at the hospital (People v. Schompert, 19 N.Y.2d 300, 305, 279 N.Y.S.2d 515, 226 N.E.2d 305, cert. denied 389 U.S. 874, 88 S.Ct. 164, 19 L.Ed.2d 157;  see People v. Williams, 291 A.D.2d 891, 737 N.Y.S.2d 757, lv. denied 98 N.Y.2d 656, 745 N.Y.S.2d 515, 772 N.E.2d 618).   The court therefore properly determined that defendant knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights, and the court properly refused to suppress the statements made by defendant after waiving those rights (see People v. Spearman, 226 A.D.2d 180, 181, 640 N.Y.S.2d 532, lv. denied 88 N.Y.2d 886, 645 N.Y.S.2d 460, 668 N.E.2d 431;  People v. Del Rosario, 210 A.D.2d 72, 620 N.Y.S.2d 3, lv. denied 84 N.Y.2d 1030, 623 N.Y.S.2d 186, 647 N.E.2d 458).   We have reviewed defendant's remaining contention and conclude that it is without merit.

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

MEMORANDUM: