Judgment affirmed.
The victim identified defendant from a photo array and at a lineup. Defendant alleges both identifications were suggestive because the photos and the participants resembled defendant rather than the perpetrator described in the police report. The description given in the report is rather general and differs from that of defendant only with respect to height. This argument is one that is properly raised at trial rather than at a Wade hearing where the issue is whether the identification procedures were unduly suggestive.
Defendant also contends that his statement should have been suppressed because there was no evidence that he waived his Miranda rights. An express waiver is not necessary and a course of conduct indicating waiver coupled with evidence that defendant understood his rights may support a conclusion of waiver (People v Norris, 75 A.D.2d 650). Thus where a defendant indicates he understands his rights, gives an oral statement, and has had prior contacts with the police, this will be sufficient to find that he knew what he was doing and waived his rights (People v Harris, 79 A.D.2d 615; People v Rooney, 82 A.D.2d 840). Here defendant indicated he understood his rights and then discussed the incident with the police officer. Defendant's probation report reveals an extensive criminal record; thus there was no error in finding a waiver and denying the branch of defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress his statement.
Defendant's contention that his sentence was unduly harsh and excessive is without merit. Mangano, J.P., Gibbons, Thompson and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.