Opinion
Argued November 22, 1999
January 24, 2000
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Dillon, J.), rendered December 5, 1997, convicting him of murder in the first degree, murder in the second degree (two counts), and robbery in the first degree, 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 statements made by him to law enforcement officials.
Stephen J. Pittari, White Plains, N.Y. (Salvatore A. Gaetani of counsel), for appellant.
Jeanine Pirro, District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Mary E. Costello and Richard E. Weill of counsel), for respondent.
FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., DANIEL W. JOY, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, his oral and videotaped confessions were properly admitted into evidence. "It is well settled that where a person in police custody has been issued Miranda warnings and voluntarily and intelligently waives those rights, it is not necessary to repeat the warnings prior to subsequent questioning within a reasonable time thereafter, so long as the custody has remained continuous" (People v. Glinsman, 107 A.D.2d 710 ). Furthermore, the record supports the conclusion of the hearing court that the defendant's statements did not result from any coercive police strategy or his detention overnight in the precinct conference room (see, People v. Baker, 208 A.D.2d 758 ;People v. Stanton, 162 A.D.2d 987 ).
The defendant also contends that the prosecutor improperly used peremptory challenges to exclude four black venirepersons from the jury (see, Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 ). Although the trial court ruled that the defendant failed to establish a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination, the prosecutor stated his reasons for the record and the defendant did not indicate dissatisfaction with those explanations. Thus, the precise Batson issue raised on appeal, i.e., that the proferred reasons were pretextual, was not preserved for appellate review (see, People v. Childress, 81 N.Y.2d 263, 268; People v. Holland, 179 A.D.2d 822, 824; People v. Campanella, 176 A.D.2d 813).
The defendant's sentence was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80 ).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
SANTUCCI, J.P., JOY, GOLDSTEIN, and FEUERSTEIN, JJ., concur.