Ineffective assistance of counsel; People v. Trakhtenberg; Whether defendant had to be advised of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona; Whether there was a custodial interrogation; People v. Barritt; Location of the interview; Oregon v. Mathiason; Duration of the questioning; People v. Elliott; Failure to make a meritless motion; People v. Knapp; Failure to request a voluntariness jury instruction; Matters of trial strategy; People v. Dunigan; Defending on the basis the act was committed involuntarily; People v. Likine

Concluding that defendant’s claim his confession should have been suppressed lacked merit, the court rejected his argument that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress it. It also rejected his contention that defense counsel was ineffective for not requesting a voluntariness jury instruction, finding that the evidentiary basis for the instruction was lacking. Thus, the court affirmed his CSC I convictions. Reviewing the factors set forth in Barritt to determine whether defendant was in custody and thus, entitled to be read his Miranda rights, it first noted, as to the location of the interview, that there “is no requirement that all interviews that occur at a police station require a Miranda warning.” It concluded that the location factor weighed against a finding that defendant “was in custody. After the trooper called defendant, he arranged to come in for an interview. Defendant then drove himself to the state police post.” The duration of the questioning factor also did not weigh in favor of finding that he was in custody. His statements likewise did not weigh in favor of such a finding. Just like the interview in Barritt, defendant’s interview was approximately 90 minutes long. But the trooper here told defendant “from the onset that he was not under arrest and that he was free to leave at any time. Moreover, the detective testified that his method of interrogation did not involve yelling or raising his voice and” the record confirmed this. As to the next two factors, he “was not physically restrained because he was not handcuffed, and unlike the defendant in Barritt, defendant was not escorted to the police station.” In addition, he “left the room to use the bathroom and voluntarily returned before being joined by the trooper and detective.” While they both appeared “to be wearing their service weapons, they remained holstered.” And although it appeared the detective’s chair was near the door, the door was not locked. The court further concluded that defendant was not in a coercive environment, given that he arranged for the “interview and was not subjected to the same consistently coercive and restrictive treatment as the defendant in Barritt.” Defense counsel was not ineffective for failing to make a futile motion to suppress his statements. The court added that, even without his statements, “there was still overwhelming evidence to convict” him.