PEOPLE v. CASS (2007)

 Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25 [1] ), unauthorized use of a vehicle in the first degree (§ 165.08) and petit larceny (§ 155.25).   Contrary to the contention of defendant, Supreme Court did not err in refusing to suppress his statements to the police.   The conflicting testimony of defendant and the police detectives presented credibility issues that the court was entitled to resolve in favor of the People (see People v. Twillie, 28 A.D.3d 1236, 813 N.Y.S.2d 626, lv. denied 7 N.Y.3d 795, 821 N.Y.S.2d 825, 854 N.E.2d 1290;  People v. Jones, 9 A.D.3d 837, 838-839, 779 N.Y.S.2d 695, lv. denied 3 N.Y.3d 708, 785 N.Y.S.2d 35, 818 N.E.2d 677, 4 N.Y.3d 745, 790 N.Y.S.2d 657, 824 N.E.2d 58;  see generally People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761, 395 N.Y.S.2d 635, 363 N.E.2d 1380).   We conclude that the police properly advised defendant of his Miranda rights before questioning him concerning a murder in Brooklyn, that defendant voluntarily and intelligently waived those rights, and that, because defendant was in the continuous custody of the police, it was not necessary for the police to advise defendant again of his Miranda rights before questioning him concerning a second murder that occurred in Buffalo (see People v. Kemp, 266 A.D.2d 887, 698 N.Y.S.2d 140, lv. denied 94 N.Y.2d 921, 708 N.Y.S.2d 361, 729 N.E.2d 1160).   Defendant contends that his Miranda rights should have been repeated before the questioning concerning the Buffalo murder because he was initially taken into custody for questioning only on the Brooklyn murder.   We reject that contention.  “There is ․ no requirement that a suspect be made aware in advance of all possible subjects of questioning” before receiving and waivingMiranda rights (People v. Seaman, 130 A.D.2d 875, 877, 515 N.Y.S.2d 647, lv. denied 70 N.Y.2d 717, 519 N.Y.S.2d 1053, 513 N.E.2d 1321;  see People v. Hall, 152 A.D.2d 948, 949, 543 N.Y.S.2d 820, lv. denied 74 N.Y.2d 847, 546 N.Y.S.2d 1012, 546 N.E.2d 195).   Finally, 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: