PEOPLE v. WOODRING (2008)

On appeal from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial of burglary in the third degree (Penal Law § 140.20) and possession of burglar's tools (§ 140.35), defendant contends that his written statement to the police was involuntary and that County Court therefore erred in refusing to suppress it.   We reject that contention.   The record establishes that defendant was advised of his Miranda rights before he was questioned and signed a written waiver of those rights immediately before signing the statement.   We thus perceive no basis to disturb the suppression court's determination (see People v. LaDuke, 206 A.D.2d 859, 860, 614 N.Y.S.2d 851;  see generally People v. Alexander, 51 A.D.3d 1380, 1381, 857 N.Y.S.2d 418).

Contrary to defendant's further contention, the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672).  “The jury was entitled to resolve issues of credibility in favor of the People” (People v. Walek, 28 A.D.3d 1246, 1246, 812 N.Y.S.2d 915, lv. denied 7 N.Y.3d 764, 819 N.Y.S.2d 890, 853 N.E.2d 261), and it cannot be said that the jury “failed to give the evidence the weight it should be accorded” (Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d at 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672;  see generally People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348-349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1).

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

MEMORANDUM: