People v. Teribury

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Teribury

191 A.D.2d 849, 595 N.Y.S.2d 696, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2360

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

DecidedMarch 11, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 191 A.D.2d 849 (People v. Teribury) 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. Teribury, 191 A.D.2d 849, 595 N.Y.S.2d 696, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2360 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Weiss, P. J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Tioga County (Siedlecki, J.), rendered March 13, 1992, convicting defendant upon Ms plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree.

Defendant was charged in a four-count indictment with [850]*850criminal possession of more than a pound of marihuana and illegal possession of four pistols and 13 blasting caps. Pursuant to a negotiated plea bargain he pleaded guilty to one count in satisfaction of the indictment and was fined and received a sentence of probation. Defendant has appealed.

Defendant contends that the search warrant was invalid and that the evidence seized thereunder should have been suppressed. However, because defendant pleaded guilty prior to a suppression hearing, he has waived his right to appellate review of that issue (see, People v Carty, 173 AD2d 900, 901, lv denied 78 NY2d 1074). Defendant’s guilty plea not only constituted an actual waiver of his right to challenge the refusal to suppress any evidence seized through the challenged search warrant, but also operates as a forfeiture of the right to review his arguments made before the plea (see, People v Taylor, 65 NY2d 1, 5). We have examined the remainder of defendant’s contentions and conclude that they are without merit.

Yesawich Jr., Levine, Crew III and Casey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

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

Weiss, P. J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Tioga County (Siedlecki, J.), rendered March 13, 1992, convicting defendant upon Ms plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree.

Defendant was charged in a four-count indictment with [850]*850criminal possession of more than a pound of marihuana and illegal possession of four pistols and 13 blasting caps. Pursuant to a negotiated plea bargain he pleaded guilty to one count in satisfaction of the indictment and was fined and received a sentence of probation. Defendant has appealed.

Defendant contends that the search warrant was invalid and that the evidence seized thereunder should have been suppressed. However, because defendant pleaded guilty prior to a suppression hearing, he has waived his right to appellate review of that issue (see, People v Carty, 173 AD2d 900, 901, lv denied 78 NY2d 1074). Defendant’s guilty plea not only constituted an actual waiver of his right to challenge the refusal to suppress any evidence seized through the challenged search warrant, but also operates as a forfeiture of the right to review his arguments made before the plea (see, People v Taylor, 65 NY2d 1, 5). We have examined the remainder of defendant’s contentions and conclude that they are without merit.

Yesawich Jr., Levine, Crew III and Casey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

191 A.D.2d 849, 595 N.Y.S.2d 696, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2360, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-teribury-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack