PEOPLE v. LOPEZ

The court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress his videotaped statement, since his vague reference to a prior request for counsel, apparently made at some unknown time and to an unknown person was not an unequivocal invocation of his right to counsel ( see People v. Glover, 87 N.Y.2d 838; People v. Fridman, 71 N.Y.2d 845; People v. Powell, 304 A.D.2d 410). Defendant's remark did not obligate the interviewing prosecutor to make any clarifying inquiries ( see Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452, 459-460).

The challenged portions of the prosecutor's summation were generally within the broad bounds of permissible rhetorical comment and did not deprive defendant of a fair trial ( see People v. D'Alessandro, 184 A.D.2d 114, 118-119, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 884).

The existing record establishes that defendant received effective assistance of counsel ( see People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 713-714; see also Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.

We have considered and rejected the remaining claims contained in defendant's pro se supplemental brief.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.