PEOPLE v. ROSADO (2006)

 On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree (Penal Law § 220.18[1] ), defendant contends that County Court erred in denying his suppression motion.   Contrary to the contention of defendant, his comprehensive waiver of the right to appeal encompasses that contention (see People v. Kemp, 94 N.Y.2d 831, 833, 703 N.Y.S.2d 59, 724 N.E.2d 754;  People v. Canty, 23 A.D.3d 1066, 803 N.Y.S.2d 493;  People v. Gilbert, 17 A.D.3d 1164, 793 N.Y.S.2d 847, lv. denied 5 N.Y.3d 762, 801 N.Y.S.2d 257, 834 N.E.2d 1267).   In any event, we conclude that the court properly denied defendant's suppression motion.   The vehicle in which defendant was a passenger was lawfully stopped for a traffic infraction (see People v. Robinson, 97 N.Y.2d 341, 348, 741 N.Y.S.2d 147, 767 N.E.2d 638, citing Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 116 S.Ct. 1769, 135 L.Ed.2d 89), and defendant was lawfully detained based upon information obtained by the authorities from, inter alia, a confidential informant who permitted the police to listen to his telephone conversations with the drug transporter in whose vehicle defendant was a passenger (see generally People v. Rodriguez, 52 N.Y.2d 483, 488-489, 438 N.Y.S.2d 754, 420 N.E.2d 946).   Also contrary to the contention of defendant, he validly waived his Miranda rights prior to making incriminating statements.   Although defendant was not questioned about the crime at issue herein for several hours after he waived his Miranda rights, he remained in continuous custody, and thus the police were not required to readminister Miranda warnings (see People v. Tobias, 273 A.D.2d 925, 711 N.Y.S.2d 652, lv. denied 95 N.Y.2d 908, 716 N.Y.S.2d 649, 739 N.E.2d 1154;  see also People v. Johnson, 219 A.D.2d 776, 631 N.Y.S.2d 454;  People v. Evans, 162 A.D.2d 702, 557 N.Y.S.2d 120, lv. denied 76 N.Y.2d 856, 560 N.Y.S.2d 996, 561 N.E.2d 896).   Finally, we have reviewed the contention of defendant in his pro se supplemental brief and conclude that it lacks merit.

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

MEMORANDUM: