PEOPLE v. IBARRONDO (2022)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

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

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 220.34 [1]). We previously held this case, reserved decision, and remitted the matter to County Court to rule on undetermined issues raised by the People in opposition to that part of defendant's omnibus motion seeking to suppress a statement he gave to a New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision Investigator on the grounds that, among other things, the statement was involuntary and was preceded by an unequivocal request for counsel (People v. Ibarrondo, 150 A.D.3d 1644, 1645-1646, 54 N.Y.S.3d 245 [4th Dept. 2017]). Upon remittal, the court (Van Allen, J.) determined that defendant's statement was given knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily, that defendant did not make an unequivocal request for counsel, and that defendant's statement was thus admissible. We affirm.

Defendant contends that the court should have suppressed his statement because he is a native Spanish speaker and the People failed to establish that he understood and knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his Miranda rights. We reject that contention. To the contrary, we conclude that the People established that the Investigator provided defendant with oral and written Miranda warnings in Spanish (see People v. Esquerdo, 71 A.D.3d 1424, 1425, 897 N.Y.S.2d 565 [4th Dept. 2010], lv denied 14 N.Y.3d 887, 903 N.Y.S.2d 775, 929 N.E.2d 1010 [2010]) and that defendant “ ‘grasped that he ․ did not have to speak to the interrogator; that any statement might be used to [his] disadvantage; and that an attorney's assistance would be provided upon request, at any time, and before questioning is continued’ ” (People v. Jin Cheng Lin, 26 N.Y.3d 701, 726, 27 N.Y.S.3d 439, 47 N.E.3d 718 [2016], quoting People v. Williams, 62 N.Y.2d 285, 289, 476 N.Y.S.2d 788, 465 N.E.2d 327 [1984]).

Contrary to defendant's further contention, the part of his statement in which he wrote that he would discuss certain issues with a lawyer did not constitute an unequivocal request for an attorney (see People v. Bowman, 194 A.D.3d 1123, 1127-1129, 146 N.Y.S.3d 686 [3d Dept. 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 963, 148 N.Y.S.3d 743, 171 N.E.3d 219 [2021]; People v. Henry, 111 A.D.3d 1321, 1321-1322, 974 N.Y.S.2d 231 [4th Dept. 2013], lv denied 23 N.Y.3d 1021, 992 N.Y.S.2d 803, 16 N.E.3d 1283 [2014]; see generally People v. Glover, 87 N.Y.2d 838, 839, 637 N.Y.S.2d 683, 661 N.E.2d 155 [1995]), and thus the court properly declined to suppress the statement on that ground.