Motion to suppress in-custody police statements; Voluntariness; People v Cipriano; Sentencing; Consecutive sentences under MCL 750.520b(3); Justification; People v Norfleet; Proportionality

Holding that there was no evidence the police violated defendant’s due process rights during his interview, the court concluded the trial court did not err in denying his motion to suppress his confession. It further held that the trial court had discretionary authority under MCL 750.520b(3) to impose consecutive sentences for his CSC I convictions and that it did not plainly err in doing so. Finally, the court found that his “sentence was proportional to the offender and his offense.” As to his challenge to the admission of his police statements, the court first determined that he “failed to establish that police officers obtained his confession through a promise of leniency or that such a promise caused him to confess his wrongdoings.” He did not present “any factual support for any promise or suggestion of leniency from police officers.” Considering the totality of the circumstances, “the trial court noted that defendant was 37 years old, intelligent, well educated, articulate, and did not suffer from any intellectual disabilities. Aside from some traffic stops, [he] had no unusual or antagonistic contacts with the police. The trial court stated that the length of [his] questioning, which lasted approximately 90 to 120 minutes, was not long in the grand scheme of things.” As to the length of his detention, the trial court found that he “was not detained per se, and the amount of time that defendant was questioned was relatively brief. The parties do not dispute that police officers advised defendant of his Miranda rights. Although [he] was hungry, there was no indication that he was injured, in ill health, deprived of any required medical attention, or sleep deprived. There was no indication that [he] requested any food or drinks from” officers during the interview. Finally, as to his intoxication, the court noted that he “described the interview room, confirmed that he was given his Miranda warnings, and confirmed that the interview constituted a friendly conversation. Consequently, defendant’s ability to comprehend where he was and what occurred was consistent with the police detective’s account of the interview.” The court concluded there was “not ‘the slightest evidence that the defendant’s confession was involuntarily extracted.’” The officers informed him “of his Miranda rights, and there is no evidence of coercion on” their part. Affirmed.