People v. Holliday

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Holliday

2017 NY Slip Op 4047, 150 A.D.3d 540, 55 N.Y.S.3d 185

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 18, 2017

Docket4051 1601/14

StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 4047 (People v. Holliday) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Holliday, 2017 NY Slip Op 4047, 150 A.D.3d 540, 55 N.Y.S.3d 185 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles H. Solomon, J., at suppression hearing; Thomas Farber, J., at plea and sentencing), rendered June 16, 2015, as amended July 7, 2015, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of one year, unanimously affirmed.

*541 Defendant made a valid waiver of his right to appeal, which forecloses his suppression claims. The plea court’s oral colloquy with defendant concerning the waiver met or exceeded the minimum standards for such a colloquy (see People v Bryant, 28 NY3d 1094 [2016]), and, after consulting with counsel, defendant also signed a written waiver that supplemented the oral waiver.

Regardless of whether defendant made a valid waiver of his right to appeal, his suppression claims are unpreserved and the record does not establish that the motion court “expressly decided” these issues “in re[s]ponse to a protest by a party” (CPL 470.05 [2]; see People v Turriago, 90 NY2d 77, 83-84 [1997]; People v Colon, 46 AD3d 260, 263-264 [1st Dept 2007]). We decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that the hearing record supports the court’s findings that the police conduct leading up to defendant’s arrest was lawful and that drugs were recovered through a valid inventory of defendant’s property, pursuant to police department regulations.

Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Manzanet-Daniels and Webber, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles H. Solomon, J., at suppression hearing; Thomas Farber, J., at plea and sentencing), rendered June 16, 2015, as amended July 7, 2015, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of one year, unanimously affirmed.

*541 Defendant made a valid waiver of his right to appeal, which forecloses his suppression claims. The plea court’s oral colloquy with defendant concerning the waiver met or exceeded the minimum standards for such a colloquy (see People v Bryant, 28 NY3d 1094 [2016]), and, after consulting with counsel, defendant also signed a written waiver that supplemented the oral waiver.

Regardless of whether defendant made a valid waiver of his right to appeal, his suppression claims are unpreserved and the record does not establish that the motion court “expressly decided” these issues “in re[s]ponse to a protest by a party” (CPL 470.05 [2]; see People v Turriago, 90 NY2d 77, 83-84 [1997]; People v Colon, 46 AD3d 260, 263-264 [1st Dept 2007]). We decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that the hearing record supports the court’s findings that the police conduct leading up to defendant’s arrest was lawful and that drugs were recovered through a valid inventory of defendant’s property, pursuant to police department regulations.

Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Manzanet-Daniels and Webber, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 4047, 150 A.D.3d 540, 55 N.Y.S.3d 185, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-holliday-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack