Opinion
178 KA 15–01859
02-09-2018
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Christopher L. MOORE, Defendant–Appellant.
TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (DAVID R. JUERGENS OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT. SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (LEAH R. MERVINE OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (DAVID R. JUERGENS OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT.
SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (LEAH R. MERVINE OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, CURRAN, AND WINSLOW, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Memorandum:
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his guilty plea of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree ( Penal Law § 265.03 [3] ). Contrary to defendant's contention, the record establishes that he knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his right to appeal (see People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 [2006] ; People v. Tantao, 41 A.D.3d 1274, 1274, 838 N.Y.S.2d 757 [4th Dept. 2007], lv denied 9 N.Y.3d 882, 842 N.Y.S.2d 794, 874 N.E.2d 761 [2007] ). County Court "was ‘not required to engage in any particular litany’ in order to obtain a valid waiver of the right to appeal" ( Tantao, 41 A.D.3d at 1274–1275, 838 N.Y.S.2d 757, quoting People v. Moissett, 76 N.Y.2d 909, 910, 563 N.Y.S.2d 43, 564 N.E.2d 653 [1990] ). The valid waiver of the right to appeal encompasses defendant's challenge to the court's suppression ruling (see People v. Kemp, 94 N.Y.2d 831, 833, 703 N.Y.S.2d 59, 724 N.E.2d 754 [1999] ; People v. Garner, 52 A.D.3d 1265, 1266, 858 N.Y.S.2d 642 [4th Dept. 2008], lv denied 11 N.Y.3d 736, 864 N.Y.S.2d 395, 894 N.E.2d 659 [2008] ).
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.