Jenay Nurse Guilford, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Nkechi N. Erondu of counsel), for appellant.
Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx (Connor S. Glendinning of counsel), for respondent.
[*1]
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Albert Lorenzo, J.), rendered June 29, 2021, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree and attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him to concurrent three-year terms, unanimously affirmed.
Defendant validly waived his right to appeal (see People v Thomas, 34 NY3d 545, 559 [2019], cert denied 589 US 1302 [2020]). The court explained to defendant that "[o]rdinarily you would retain the right to appeal even after pleading guilty. So a waiver of the right to appeal is separate and distinct from the waiver of the right of a trial and other rights of a plea of guilty," and the court's colloquy closely tracked the Model Colloquy (see People v Maldonado, 242 AD3d 419, 420 [1st Dept 2025], lv denied 44 NY3d 1053 [2025]). Further, the written waiver stated, "I understand that my right to appeal is separate and distinct from the rights automatically forfeited upon a guilty plea." The fact that the colloquy about the waiver occurred after allocution does not render his waiver of his right to appeal invalid (see People v Jessamy, 237 AD3d 619, 619 [1st Dept 2025], lv denied 43 NY3d 1046 [2025]). The valid waiver of the right to appeal forecloses our review of defendant's challenge to the search warrant (see People v Wallace, 240 AD3d 437, 438 [1st Dept 2025], lv denied 44 NY3d 1014 [2025]).
As an alternative holding, we find that there was a sufficient factual predicate upon which to issue the search warrant in this case (seePeople v Griminger, 71 NY2d 635, 639 [1988]; see alsoPeople v Parris, 83 NY2d 342, 350 [1994] ["An identified citizen informant is presumed to be personally reliable"]); People v Goldman, 189 AD3d 698, 700 [1st Dept 2020], lv denied 36 NY3d 1097 [2021]).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: April 14, 2026
People v Flores - 2026 NY Slip Op 02215
skip to main content
It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.
Law Reporting Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter
Court Decisions Resources About
People v Flores
2026 NY Slip Op 02215
April 14, 2026
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
Jenay Nurse Guilford, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Nkechi N. Erondu of counsel), for appellant.
Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx (Connor S. Glendinning of counsel), for respondent.
[*1]
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Albert Lorenzo, J.), rendered June 29, 2021, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree and attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him to concurrent three-year terms, unanimously affirmed.
Defendant validly waived his right to appeal (see People v Thomas, 34 NY3d 545, 559 [2019], cert denied 589 US 1302 [2020]). The court explained to defendant that "[o]rdinarily you would retain the right to appeal even after pleading guilty. So a waiver of the right to appeal is separate and distinct from the waiver of the right of a trial and other rights of a plea of guilty," and the court's colloquy closely tracked the Model Colloquy (see People v Maldonado, 242 AD3d 419, 420 [1st Dept 2025], lv denied 44 NY3d 1053 [2025]). Further, the written waiver stated, "I understand that my right to appeal is separate and distinct from the rights automatically forfeited upon a guilty plea." The fact that the colloquy about the waiver occurred after allocution does not render his waiver of his right to appeal invalid (see People v Jessamy, 237 AD3d 619, 619 [1st Dept 2025], lv denied 43 NY3d 1046 [2025]). The valid waiver of the right to appeal forecloses our review of defendant's challenge to the search warrant (see People v Wallace, 240 AD3d 437, 438 [1st Dept 2025], lv denied 44 NY3d 1014 [2025]).
As an alternative holding, we find that there was a sufficient factual predicate upon which to issue the search warrant in this case (seePeople v Griminger, 71 NY2d 635, 639 [1988]; see alsoPeople v Parris, 83 NY2d 342, 350 [1994] ["An identified citizen informant is presumed to be personally reliable"]); People v Goldman, 189 AD3d 698, 700 [1st Dept 2020], lv denied 36 NY3d 1097 [2021]).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.