Opinion
April 5, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (George Covington, J.).
Defendant was indicted for the gunpoint robbery of a cab driver. During trial, after the cab driver testified, defendant pleaded guilty. Defendant contends that he pleaded guilty because his right to confront witnesses against him was curtailed by the restriction the trial court imposed on counsel which prevented him from fully and effectively cross-examining the complainant regarding matters raised by codefendant's counsel. Defendant points out that upon cross-examination inconsistencies were brought out, and that he was entitled to further latitude in cross-examination.
The trial court is vested with the discretion to determine the extent of cross-examination. (Smith v. Illinois, 390 U.S. 129, 132.) Whether the trial court abused its discretion in limiting the cross-examination need not be reached by this court because defendant has forfeited his right to appellate review of this issue. "Forfeiture occurs by operation of law as a consequence of a guilty plea, with respect to issues which as a matter of policy the law does not permit to survive such a plea." (People v Thomas, 53 N.Y.2d 338, 342, n 2.) A defendant by pleading guilty forfeits appellate review of nonjurisdictional issues. (People v Fernandez, 67 N.Y.2d 686, 688.) The factual issue of defendant's guilt is thereby removed from the case. Defendant's claim that he was unduly limited in cross-examination of the complainant goes to the factual sufficiency of the evidence against him. The guilty plea indicated the end of litigating defendant's guilt and the waiver of certain constitutional rights including the right of confrontation. (People v. Taylor, 65 N.Y.2d 1, 5.)
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Ross, Rosenberger, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.