PEOPLE v. McCLOUD (1998)

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hanophy, J.), rendered April 15, 1996, convicting him of murder in the second degree (two counts) and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.   The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Fisher, J.), of that branch of the defendant's motion which was to suppress statements made by him to law enforcement authorities.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The hearing court was correct in finding that, although the defendant's arrest was not based on probable cause, certain statements made by him were admissible at trial as they were sufficiently attenuated from the illegal arrest to be purged of the taint created by the illegality (see, United States v. Crews, 445 U.S. 463, 100 S.Ct. 1244, 63 L.Ed.2d 537;  Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 95 S.Ct. 2254, 45 L.Ed.2d 416;  People v. Conyers, 68 N.Y.2d 982, 510 N.Y.S.2d 552, 503 N.E.2d 108;  People v. Rogers, 52 N.Y.2d 527, 439 N.Y.S.2d 96, 421 N.E.2d 491, cert. denied 454 U.S. 898, 102 S.Ct. 399, 70 L.Ed.2d 214).   The statements in question were made by the defendant about eight hours after he had received the Miranda warnings no less than three times (see, People v. Conyers, supra;  People v. Jones, 151 A.D.2d 695, 696, 542 N.Y.S.2d 750;  People v. Davis, 120 A.D.2d 606, 502 N.Y.S.2d 80;  People v. Graham, 90 A.D.2d 198, 457 N.Y.S.2d 962, cert. denied 464 U.S. 896, 104 S.Ct. 246, 78 L.Ed.2d 234;  People v. Calhoun, 78 A.D.2d 658, 432 N.Y.S.2d 226).   In addition, the police did not attempt to exploit the illegal arrest (see, People v. Conyers, supra;  People v. Rogers, supra), and the defendant's statements were given only after an accomplice, who had been arrested at a different time, and an informant who was in the vicinity of the crime scene during the murder, had implicated him (see, People v. Jones, supra;  People v. Allah, 140 A.D.2d 613, 529 N.Y.S.2d 5;  People v. Davis, supra;  People v. Mas, 110 A.D.2d 915, 916, 488 N.Y.S.2d 261;  People v. Matos, 93 A.D.2d 772, 461 N.Y.S.2d 341;  People v. Emrick, 89 A.D.2d 787, 788, 453 N.Y.S.2d 478).

Further, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).

The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.