PEOPLE v. GREEN

Reset A A Font size: Print

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

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Willie GREEN, Appellant.

Decided: November 25, 1998

Before MIKOLL, J.P., MERCURE, CREW, PETERS and CARPINELLO, JJ. Eugene P. Devine, Public Defender (Jeanne M. Heran of counsel), Albany, for appellant. Sol Greenberg, District Attorney (Mirriam Z. Seddiq of counsel), Albany, for respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Lamont, J.), rendered March 4, 1997 in Albany County, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of attempted assault in the second degree and attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree.

 Defendant pleaded guilty to the crimes of attempted assault in the second degree and attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree in full satisfaction of a three-count indictment.   As a result of the negotiated plea agreement, defendant was sentenced to two concurrent prison terms of 1 1/3 to 4 years.   Defendant appeals contending that County Court erred by failing to suppress a statement he made to police officers and that his sentence was harsh and excessive.

We reject defendant's contention that County Court erred by failing to suppress the statement he made to police officers while he was in the hospital.   While his victim was receiving medical treatment, defendant was standing in the hallway.   Two police officers arrived at the hospital and, upon seeing them, defendant approached the police officers and told them that he had hit the victim with a belt.   The statement was not derived while defendant was in custody or as a result of an interrogation and, therefore, there was no Miranda violation (see, People v. Centano, 76 N.Y.2d 837, 838, 560 N.Y.S.2d 121, 559 N.E.2d 1280;  People v. Yukl, 25 N.Y.2d 585, 307 N.Y.S.2d 857, 256 N.E.2d 172).

Similarly unavailing is defendant's contention that his sentence was harsh and excessive.   Given defendant's lengthy criminal history, as well as the fact that the sentence was agreed to and was not the harshest sentence possible, we find no reason to disturb County Court's sentence (see, People v. Hollins, 248 A.D.2d 892, 893-894, 670 N.Y.S.2d 925, 926;  People v. Johnson, 243 A.D.2d 997, 998, 663 N.Y.S.2d 910, lv. denied 91 N.Y.2d 926, 670 N.Y.S.2d 408, 693 N.E.2d 755;  People v. Diaz, 240 A.D.2d 961, 660 N.Y.S.2d 72;  People v. Richard, 229 A.D.2d 787, 645 N.Y.S.2d 644, lv. denied 89 N.Y.2d 928, 654 N.Y.S.2d 731, 677 N.E.2d 303;  People v. Alicea, 176 A.D.2d 143, 573 N.Y.S.2d 1017).

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

CREW, Justice.

MIKOLL, J.P., MERCURE, PETERS and CARPINELLO, JJ., concur.

Copied to clipboard