Opinion
2013–06474 Ind. No. 89/12
04-25-2018
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Quahsym PARKER, appellant.
Steven A. Feldman, Uniondale, N.Y. (Arza Feldman of counsel), for appellant. William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Kirsten A. Rappleyea of counsel), for respondent.
Steven A. Feldman, Uniondale, N.Y. (Arza Feldman of counsel), for appellant.
William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Kirsten A. Rappleyea of counsel), for respondent.
RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P., LEONARD B. AUSTIN, SHERI S. ROMAN, SANDRA L. SGROI, JJ.
DECISION & ORDERAppeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Stephen L. Greller, J.), rendered June 11, 2013, convicting him of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second 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 suppress physical evidence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Since the evidence submitted on that branch of the defendant's motion which was to suppress physical evidence demonstrated the existence of probable cause to arrest him (see CPL 140.10[1][b] ; People v. DeCasta, 34 A.D.3d 828, 826 N.Y.S.2d 134 ), and that the items seized from his apartment were taken pursuant to a search warrant, suppression was properly denied without a hearing (see CPL 710.60[1] ; People v. Mendoza, 82 N.Y.2d 415, 421, 604 N.Y.S.2d 922, 624 N.E.2d 1017 ; People v. Newmark, 155 A.D.3d 974, 65 N.Y.S.3d 225 ).
The defendant's challenge to the factual sufficiency of his plea allocution is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v. Toxey, 86 N.Y.2d 725, 726, 631 N.Y.S.2d 119, 655 N.E.2d 160 ; People v. Kelly, 151 A.D.3d 751, 752, 55 N.Y.S.3d 445 ). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the exception to the preservation requirement does not apply in this case, because the defendant's allocution did not clearly cast significant doubt on his guilt, negate an essential element of the crime, or call into question the voluntariness of the plea (see People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 ). In any event, the plea allocution was sufficient, as it showed that the defendant understood the charges and made an intelligent decision to accept the plea (see People v. Goldstein, 12 N.Y.3d 295, 301, 879 N.Y.S.2d 814, 907 N.E.2d 692 ; People v. Seeber, 4 N.Y.3d 780, 781, 793 N.Y.S.2d 826, 826 N.E.2d 797 ).
The defendant's remaining contention, challenging the imposition of a civil forfeiture of certain items and currency, is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v. Coleman, 138 A.D.3d 1014, 1015, 29 N.Y.S.3d 552 ), and, in any event, without merit (see People v. Coleman, 138 A.D.3d at 1015, 29 N.Y.S.3d 552 ; cf. People v. Carmichael, 123 A.D.3d 1053, 999 N.Y.S.2d 476 ).
BALKIN, J.P., AUSTIN, ROMAN and SGROI, JJ., concur.