Since the first officer at the scene testified that he gave Miranda warnings from a standardized card, this was sufficient proof upon which to draw the inference that the warnings were correctly given, even though the card was neither placed in evidence nor read into the record and the officer was unable to correctly recite the warnings from memory (People v. Chaplin, 159 A.D.2d 209, 210, lv denied 75 N.Y.2d 964). Even if we were to find defendant's statement to the first officer at the scene inadmissible, we would find defendant's statement to the investigating officer over an hour later, which followed undisputedly correct warnings, to be admissible because of the definite, pronounced break in the interrogation (People v Vientos, 164 A.D.2d 122, 127, affd 79 N.Y.2d 771).
Furthermore, defendant clearly understood the meaning of the warnings and thus was not mentally incompetent to waive his rights (People v. Williams, 62 N.Y.2d 285, 290).
Finally, given the heinous nature of the crime, the bargained-for sentence was not excessive.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Asch, Rubin, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.