People v. Nunez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Nunez

73 A.D.3d 1469, 899 N.Y.S.2d 925

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

DecidedMay 7, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 73 A.D.3d 1469 (People v. Nunez) 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. Nunez, 73 A.D.3d 1469, 899 N.Y.S.2d 925 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Alex R. Renzi, J.), rendered April 18, 2007. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree (Penal Law § 220.21 [1]). We reject the contention of defendant that County Court erred in failing to address his requests to proceed pro se. “Defendant never made an unequivocal invocation of his right of self-representation[ ] because each of his requests to proceed pro se was made in the context of a request for substitution of counsel” (People v McClam, 297 AD2d 514, 514 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 537 [2002]; see also People v Caswell, 56 AD3d 1300, 1301-1302 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 923 [2009], denied reconsideration 12 NY3d 781 [2009]; see generally People v Gillian, 8 NY3d 85, 88 [2006]).

We conclude that “[defendant forfeited the right to our review of [his further] contention[ ] . . . that the court should have suppressed evidence seized [from his residence] inasmuch as he pleaded guilty before the court determined whether suppression was warranted” (People v Graham, 42 AD3d 933, 933-934 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 876 [2007]). “A guilty plea ‘generally results in a forfeiture of the right to appellate review of any nonjurisdictional defects in the proceedings’ ” (People v Powless, 66 AD3d 1353 [2009], quoting People v Fernandez, 67 NY2d 686, 688 [1986]). Although a defendant convicted upon a plea of guilty may seek review of “[a]n order finally denying a motion to suppress evidence” (CPL 710.70 [2]) upon an appeal from the judgment of conviction, no such order was issued in this case. Present—Smith, J.P., Garni, Sconiers and Pine, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Alex R. Renzi, J.), rendered April 18, 2007. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree (Penal Law § 220.21 [1]). We reject the contention of defendant that County Court erred in failing to address his requests to proceed pro se. “Defendant never made an unequivocal invocation of his right of self-representation[ ] because each of his requests to proceed pro se was made in the context of a request for substitution of counsel” (People v McClam, 297 AD2d 514, 514 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 537 [2002]; see also People v Caswell, 56 AD3d 1300, 1301-1302 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 923 [2009], denied reconsideration 12 NY3d 781 [2009]; see generally People v Gillian, 8 NY3d 85, 88 [2006]).

We conclude that “[defendant forfeited the right to our review of [his further] contention[ ] . . . that the court should have suppressed evidence seized [from his residence] inasmuch as he pleaded guilty before the court determined whether suppression was warranted” (People v Graham, 42 AD3d 933, 933-934 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 876 [2007]). “A guilty plea ‘generally results in a forfeiture of the right to appellate review of any nonjurisdictional defects in the proceedings’ ” (People v Powless, 66 AD3d 1353 [2009], quoting People v Fernandez, 67 NY2d 686, 688 [1986]). Although a defendant convicted upon a plea of guilty may seek review of “[a]n order finally denying a motion to suppress evidence” (CPL 710.70 [2]) upon an appeal from the judgment of conviction, no such order was issued in this case. Present—Smith, J.P., Garni, Sconiers and Pine, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 A.D.3d 1469, 899 N.Y.S.2d 925, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-nunez-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack