Opinion
July 2, 1990
Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Belfi, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The evidence adduced at the suppression hearing established that the defendant's arrest was predicated upon probable cause. Upon responding to the scene of a shooting at a Burger King restaurant, the arresting police officer observed the fatally wounded victim lying behind the counter and immediately conducted a search of the restaurant. He apprehended the defendant shortly after the crime in an area furnishing access to an outside loading dock for the restaurant and adjacent stores. The defendant matched the radio-transmitted description of the assailant in most material respects, which included sex, race, clothing, and a distinctive facial feature — a beard. Contrary to the defendant's contention, the officer had information sufficient to support a reasonable belief that a criminal offense had been committed and that the defendant was the perpetrator (see, People v. Jones, 149 A.D.2d 970; People v. Dennis, 125 A.D.2d 325; cf., People v. Riddick, 110 A.D.2d 787).
Furthermore, there is no basis for disturbing the hearing court's finding that the inculpatory statement made by the defendant to the arresting officer, while being escorted back inside the restaurant, was spontaneous and unsolicited. The police officer neither asked the handcuffed defendant any questions nor engaged in any course of conduct subtly designed to elicit a statement from him (see, People v. Johnston, 147 A.D.2d 589; People v. Bryant, 87 A.D.2d 873, 874, affd 59 N.Y.2d 786). We also reject the defendant's argument that the confession he made to Detective Allen while in an ambulance en route to the hospital should have been suppressed as violative of his Miranda rights. Prior to the defendant making the confession, Detective Allen had fully advised defendant of his constitutional rights. Although the defendant had sustained a self-inflicted gunshot wound, the ambulance medical technician's testimony does not substantiate the defendant's claim that his medical condition precluded him from making a voluntary and knowing waiver of his Miranda rights (see, People v. Wilkins, 147 A.D.2d 729, 731).
Lastly, we find no error in the County Court's failure to order, sua sponte, an examination of the defendant pursuant to CPL article 730 to determine if the defendant was competent, prior to accepting his plea of guilty to the reduced charge of manslaughter in the first degree, and imposing sentence. The defendant was composed and expressed himself rationally and coherently during the plea and sentencing proceedings (see, People v. Palmer, 143 A.D.2d 469). There is no evidence that the defendant had ever been treated or confined in a hospital for any mental disease or defect (cf., People v. Jones, 134 A.D.2d 701). His attempted suicide shortly after shooting his ex-girlfriend does not establish that he lacked the capacity to understand the proceedings against him (see, People v. Carbone, 159 A.D.2d 511; People v. Dudasik, 112 A.D.2d 20). A review of the record discloses no basis to question the defendant's competence. Lawrence, J.P., Kunzeman, Rubin and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.