PEOPLE v. RODRIGUEZ (1999)

Judgments, Supreme Court, New York County (Antonio Brandveen, J., at suppression hearing and motion to dismiss;  Harold Beeler and Rose Rubin, JJ., at pleas;  Harold Beeler, J., at sentencing), rendered April 25, 1995, convicting defendant, upon his pleas of guilty, of manslaughter in the first degree and attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to consecutive terms of 81/313 to 25 years and 2 to 6 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant's motion to suppress statements was properly denied.   Although the hearing court failed to make findings of fact and conclusions of law, this Court has an adequate record on which to make its own findings (People v. Denti, 44 A.D.2d 44, 47, 353 N.Y.S.2d 10).   The evidence adduced at the hearing amply supported the court's decision to deny suppression of defendant's statements.   We find that the statements were not the fruit of an unlawful detention.   As conceded at the hearing by defendant, the officers had reasonable suspicion to detain and frisk defendant for investigatory purposes, which detention was for a reasonable period of time.   The totality of the record establishes that defendant's decision to accompany the officers to the stationhouse and remain there for questioning was voluntary (see, People v. Li, 235 A.D.2d 211, 653 N.Y.S.2d 98, lv. denied 89 N.Y.2d 1037, 659 N.Y.S.2d 868, 681 N.E.2d 1315).

Defendant's claim that the court should have granted his motion to dismiss the indictment for the failure of the People to disclose a purported showup identification is forfeited by his guilty plea (People v. Di Raffaele, 55 N.Y.2d 234, 448 N.Y.S.2d 448, 433 N.E.2d 513;  People v. Randolph, 222 A.D.2d 205, 635 N.Y.S.2d 3, lv. denied 88 N.Y.2d 852, 644 N.Y.S.2d 698, 667 N.E.2d 348).   In any event, the court provided adequate remedies for the nondisclosure and dismissal would not have been warranted.

We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.