PEOPLE v. JOHNSON (2006)

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Rosenwasser, J.), rendered June 29, 2004, convicting him of burglary in the second degree and petit larceny, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.   The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress his statements to law enforcement officials.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

 Contrary to the defendant's contention, the County Court properly denied that branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress his statements to the police.   The factual findings and credibility determinations of the County Court following a suppression hearing are entitled to great deference on appeal and will not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see People v. Tissiera, 22 A.D.3d 611, 801 N.Y.S.2d 747;  People v. Myers, 17 A.D.3d 699, 700, 793 N.Y.S.2d 537;  People v. Leggio, 305 A.D.2d 518, 519, 761 N.Y.S.2d 74).   The record here amply supports the court's determination to credit the testimony of the detective and to reject the testimony of the defendant, who claimed, inter alia, that during the interrogation, he was tired and under the influence of drugs and alcohol, and was not advised of his Miranda rights (see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694;  People v. Harris, 134 A.D.2d 369, 520 N.Y.S.2d 847;  see also People v. King, 183 A.D.2d 785, 786, 586 N.Y.S.2d 516;  People v. Auxilly, 173 A.D.2d 627, 628-629, 570 N.Y.S.2d 212).

The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2] ).   In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v. Schermerhorn, 283 A.D.2d 524, 525, 727 N.Y.S.2d 440;  People v. Arias, 270 A.D.2d 354, 704 N.Y.S.2d 874;  People v. Soto, 216 A.D.2d 337, 628 N.Y.S.2d 155;  People v. Wright, 129 A.D.2d 600, 514 N.Y.S.2d 95;  see also People v. McClam, 173 A.D.2d 861, 572 N.Y.S.2d 638). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15[5] ).

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.