Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant was given his Miranda warnings and was asked, "Do you `wanna' speak to me?" The defendant's negative response invoked his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent but not his Sixth Amendment right to counsel (see, People v. Gamble, 129 A.D.2d 470, affd. 70 N.Y.2d 885). Some hours later, and upon his own initiative, the defendant stated that he wished to talk to the police and volunteered a statement. Since the defendant's right to remain silent had been "scrupulously honored" by the police in the interim, his subsequent voluntary statement was properly admitted into evidence (see, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 479; Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96; People v. Ferro, 63 N.Y.2d 316, cert. denied 472 U.S. 1007).
Moreover, the trial court's Sandoval ruling was not an improvident exercise of discretion. Despite the fact that the defendant's prior theft offenses were similar in nature to the crime with which he was charged, their prejudicial effect was outweighed by their probative value since theft offenses are highly relevant on the question of a defendant's credibility and willingness to further his self-interest at the expense of society (see, People v. Winfield, 145 A.D.2d 449; People v. Wendel, 123 A.D.2d 410; People v. Wright, 112 A.D.2d 179).
The defendant's contention that the sentence imposed was excessive is without merit (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Bracken, J.P., Brown, Kunzeman and Harwood, JJ., concur.