People v. Soto

46 A.D.3d 395, 848 N.Y.S.2d 93
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in People v. Soto. Read the opinion of the Court — 31 A.D.3d 793

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert M. Stolz, J., at hearing; Charles H. Solomon, J., at plea and sentence), rendered March 14, 2006, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of one year, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant made a valid waiver of his right to appeal, which forecloses review of his suppression claim. The court expressly informed him that as a condition of the plea, he was agreeing to waive his right to appeal, and the court explicitly separated that right from the rights automatically forfeited by a guilty plea (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256-257 [2006]). Furthermore, the record makes it clear that not only did defendant have the opportunity to discuss the proposed appeal waiver with his lawyer, but he also executed a detailed written waiver in which he stated that he agreed to give up his right to appeal because he was receiving a favorable plea and sentence agreement (see People v Ramos, 7 NY3d 737 [2006]). In any event, were we to find the waiver to be unenforceable, we would reject the suppression claim on the merits. Concur—Lippman, P.J., Marlow, Williams and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

People v. Soto, 46 A.D.3d 395, 848 N.Y.S.2d 93 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

46 A.D.3d 395 (People v. Soto) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Lopez
844 N.E.2d 1145 (New York Court of Appeals, 2006)
People v. Ramos
853 N.E.2d 222 (New York Court of Appeals, 2006)