People v. Saunders

137 A.D.3d 612, 26 N.Y.S.3d 850
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 22, 2016
Docket574 4226N/12
StatusPublished

This text of 137 A.D.3d 612 (People v. Saunders) 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. Saunders, 137 A.D.3d 612, 26 N.Y.S.3d 850 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Melissa C. Jackson, J.), rendered February 18, 2014, as amended March 5, 2014, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (four counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (three counts), criminal possession of marijuana in the third degree, criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree (two counts), criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and unlawful possession of ammunition, and sentencing him, as a second felony drug offender previously convicted of a violent felony, to an aggregate term of seven years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant made a valid waiver of his right to appeal (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256-257 [2006]). The court did not conflate the right to appeal with the rights automatically forfeited by pleading guilty. Instead, it separately explained to defendant that as part of his plea bargain, he was agreeing to waive his right to appeal. Defendant confirmed that he understood, and the oral colloquy was supplemented by a written waiver. The waiver forecloses review of defendant’s suppression claims.

Regardless of whether defendant made a valid waiver of his right to appeal, we find, based on our in camera review of sealed materials, that there was probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant, and that defendant’s suppression motion was properly denied.

Concur—Sweeny, J.P, Renwick, Moskowitz and Gische, JJ.

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

Related

People v. Lopez
844 N.E.2d 1145 (New York Court of Appeals, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
137 A.D.3d 612, 26 N.Y.S.3d 850, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-saunders-nyappdiv-2016.