PEOPLE v. ALLAH

Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Jisun ALLAH, Defendant-Appellant.

Decided: September 25, 2008

TOM, J.P., MAZZARELLI, FRIEDMAN, WILLIAMS, MOSKOWITZ, JJ. Richard M. Greenberg, Office of the Appellate Defender, New York (Kerry S. Jamieson of counsel), for appellant. Robert T. Johnson, District Attorney, Bronx (Jason S. Whitehead of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Thomas Farber, J.), rendered February 1, 2006, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of 5 years, unanimously affirmed.

 The court properly denied defendant's suppression motion in all respects.   When, in response to the officers' inquiry about the whereabouts of a knife, defendant offered to show them the knife and led them into his apartment, defendant manifested his voluntary consent to a search of the premises for the purpose of recovering the knife (see People v. Gonzalez, 39 N.Y.2d 122, 128-131, 383 N.Y.S.2d 215, 347 N.E.2d 575 [1976] ).   Although the police took defendant back into the hallway outside the apartment, the officer's reentry into the apartment to recover the knife did not constitute a second, separate search;  the search of the room from which the knife was recovered was within the scope of defendant's consent.   Although defendant was in custody, the inquiry about the knife's location was justified by public safety concerns and thus did not require Miranda warnings (see New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649, 659, 104 S.Ct. 2626, 81 L.Ed.2d 550 [1984];  People v. Allen, 240 A.D.2d 418, 658 N.Y.S.2d 393 [1997], lv. denied 90 N.Y.2d 1009, 666 N.Y.S.2d 104, 688 N.E.2d 1387 [1997];  People v. Waiters, 121 A.D.2d 414, 502 N.Y.S.2d 530 [1986], lv. denied 68 N.Y.2d 760, 506 N.Y.S.2d 1049, 497 N.E.2d 719 [1986] ).

 Defendant made a valid waiver of his right to counsel, after an extensive inquiry by the court that established his ability to represent himself and emphasized the dangers and disadvantages of proceeding without counsel (see People v. Providence, 2 N.Y.3d 579, 580-581, 780 N.Y.S.2d 552, 813 N.E.2d 632 [2004] ).