People v. Hicks

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hicks

254 A.D.2d 48, 679 N.Y.S.2d 277, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10041

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 6, 1998·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jay Gold, J.), rendered April 15, 1996, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of IV2 to 3 years, unanimously affirmed.

There is no merit to defendant’s claim that his explicit waiver of his right to appeal the suppression ruling was “coerced to conceal error” (People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1, 11). Defendant’s argument misconstrues the concept of “concealment” addressed in Seaberg. As the Court of Appeals subsequently explained in People v Holman (89 NY2d 876, 878), “Avoidance of an appeal of openly explored, arguable issues of law is not concealment of error for these purposes”. Accordingly, defendant’s valid waiver forecloses review of his suppression claim, which in any event will not warrant reversal. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach and Williams, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jay Gold, J.), rendered April 15, 1996, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of IV2 to 3 years, unanimously affirmed.

There is no merit to defendant’s claim that his explicit waiver of his right to appeal the suppression ruling was “coerced to conceal error” (People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1, 11). Defendant’s argument misconstrues the concept of “concealment” addressed in Seaberg. As the Court of Appeals subsequently explained in People v Holman (89 NY2d 876, 878), “Avoidance of an appeal of openly explored, arguable issues of law is not concealment of error for these purposes”. Accordingly, defendant’s valid waiver forecloses review of his suppression claim, which in any event will not warrant reversal. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach and Williams, JJ.

People v. Hicks, 254 A.D.2d 48, 679 N.Y.S.2d 277, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10041 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

254 A.D.2d 48 (People v. Hicks) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related