People v. Slater

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Slater

141 A.D.3d 677, 35 N.Y.S.3d 452

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

DecidedJuly 20, 2016

Docket2014-10356

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 141 A.D.3d 677 (People v. Slater) 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. Slater, 141 A.D.3d 677, 35 N.Y.S.3d 452 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Forman, J.), rendered October 1, 2013, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, without a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to controvert a search warrant and to suppress physical evidence seized in the execution thereof.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the People’s contention, the defendant preserved for appellate review his arguments regarding the validity of a search warrant by making these arguments in connection with that branch of his omnibus motion which was to controvert the warrant and to suppress physical evidence seized in the execution thereof (see CPL 470.05 [2]; 710.70 [2]; cf. People v Clarke, 66 AD3d 693, 694 [2009]). Also contrary to the People’s contention, the defendant’s purported waiver of his right to appeal the suppression determination is invalid, as the record does not demonstrate that the defendant understood that the right to appeal a suppression determination is separate and distinct from those rights automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty (see People v Bradshaw, 18 NY3d 257, 264 [2011]; People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256-257 [2006]).

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, however, the County Court properly denied that branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress the physical evidence seized pursuant to the search warrant. The search warrant application demonstrated that the confidential informant who provided information to the police was reliable and had personal knowledge of the unlawful activity alleged in the application, as that information was corroborated by the personal observations of police officers *678 who used the confidential informant in conducting three controlled purchases of narcotics from the defendant (see People v Brucciani, 82 AD3d 1001, 1002 [2011]; People v Keyes, 291 AD2d 571 [2002]; People v Joshua, 286 AD2d 343, 344 [2001]).

By pleading guilty, the defendant forfeited his right to seek review of any alleged Brady violation (see Brady v Maryland, 373 US 83 [1963]; People v Nelson, 137 AD3d 948 [2016]; People v Leach, 115 AD3d 677, 679 [2014], affd 26 NY3d 1154 [2016]; People v Huggins, 105 AD3d 760, 761 [2013]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit.

Dillon, J.P., Dickerson, Cohen and Duffy, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Forman, J.), rendered October 1, 2013, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, without a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to controvert a search warrant and to suppress physical evidence seized in the execution thereof.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the People’s contention, the defendant preserved for appellate review his arguments regarding the validity of a search warrant by making these arguments in connection with that branch of his omnibus motion which was to controvert the warrant and to suppress physical evidence seized in the execution thereof (see CPL 470.05 [2]; 710.70 [2]; cf. People v Clarke, 66 AD3d 693, 694 [2009]). Also contrary to the People’s contention, the defendant’s purported waiver of his right to appeal the suppression determination is invalid, as the record does not demonstrate that the defendant understood that the right to appeal a suppression determination is separate and distinct from those rights automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty (see People v Bradshaw, 18 NY3d 257, 264 [2011]; People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256-257 [2006]).

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, however, the County Court properly denied that branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress the physical evidence seized pursuant to the search warrant. The search warrant application demonstrated that the confidential informant who provided information to the police was reliable and had personal knowledge of the unlawful activity alleged in the application, as that information was corroborated by the personal observations of police officers *678 who used the confidential informant in conducting three controlled purchases of narcotics from the defendant (see People v Brucciani, 82 AD3d 1001, 1002 [2011]; People v Keyes, 291 AD2d 571 [2002]; People v Joshua, 286 AD2d 343, 344 [2001]).

By pleading guilty, the defendant forfeited his right to seek review of any alleged Brady violation (see Brady v Maryland, 373 US 83 [1963]; People v Nelson, 137 AD3d 948 [2016]; People v Leach, 115 AD3d 677, 679 [2014], affd 26 NY3d 1154 [2016]; People v Huggins, 105 AD3d 760, 761 [2013]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit.

Dillon, J.P., Dickerson, Cohen and Duffy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

141 A.D.3d 677, 35 N.Y.S.3d 452, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-slater-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack