Case ID: ad2d_309/html/0570-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Alexander Pierre, Appellant.
    [765 NYS2d 344]
   Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (George Daniels, J.), rendered September 14, 1998, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of manslaughter in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second and third degrees, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 12 ¥2 to 25 years and 7¥2 to 15 years, consecutive to a term of 3¥2 to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress statements. After the arresting officer administered Miranda warnings and asked defendant if he would answer questions, defendant stated that he wanted to wait to speak with a judge. This was not an unequivocal invocation of either his right to counsel (see People v Glover, 87 NY2d 838 [1995]; People v Hicks, 69 NY2d 969 [1987]) or his right to remain silent (see People v Hendricks, 90 NY2d 956 [1997]). The record supports the court’s determination that defendant’s subsequent statements, made hours later after renewed Miranda warnings, were admissible. Defendant’s remaining arguments on the suppression issue are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning credibility. The evidence, including defendant’s own version of the events, clearly refuted his justification defense.

The court properly sentenced defendant to a consecutive term for his third-degree weapon possession conviction. This conviction represented a separate offense, as defendant admitted in his videotaped statement that he had brought the weapon to the nightclub in question on a number of occasions in the past (see People v Salcedo, 92 NY2d 1019 [1998]; People v Almodovar, 62 NY2d 126 [1984]). We decline to vacate the third-degree weapon possession conviction in the interest of justice, and we perceive no basis for a reduction in sentence. Concur — Saxe, J.P., Rosenberger, Williams, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.