Opinion
02-03-2017
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Darryl GOODWIN, also known as Daryl Goodwin, Defendant–Appellant.
Timothy P. Donaher, Public Defender, Rochester (David R. Juergens of Counsel), for defendant-appellant. Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Daniel Gross of Counsel), for respondent.
Timothy P. Donaher, Public Defender, Rochester (David R. Juergens of Counsel), for defendant-appellant.
Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Daniel Gross of Counsel), for respondent.
MEMORANDUM:
On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16[1] ), defendant contends that his waiver of the right to appeal was invalid. We reject that contention inasmuch as the record demonstrates that the waiver was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered (see generally People v. Sanders, 25 N.Y.3d 337, 341–342, 12 N.Y.S.3d 593, 34 N.E.3d 344 ). Contrary to defendant's contention, his "waiver [of the right to appeal] is not invalid on the ground that [Supreme Court] did not specifically inform [him] that his general waiver of the right to appeal encompassed the court's suppression rulings" (People v. Brand, 112 A.D.3d 1320, 1321, 976 N.Y.S.2d 906, lv. denied 23 N.Y.3d 961, 988 N.Y.S.2d 568, 11 N.E.3d 718 [internal quotation marks omitted] ). Thus, defendant's valid waiver of the right to appeal encompasses his contention that the court erred in denying his suppression motion (see Sanders, 25 N.Y.3d at 342, 12 N.Y.S.3d 593, 34 N.E.3d 344 ).
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, DeJOSEPH, CURRAN, and SCUDDER, JJ., concur.