Opinion
No. 2022-09841 Ind. No. 70379/20
06-26-2024
The People of the State of New York, respondent, v. Arem Rodgers, appellant.
Andrew E. MacAskill, Garden City, NY, for appellant. Anne T. Donnelly, District Attorney, Mineola, NY (Jason R. Richards and Hilda Mortensen of counsel), for respondent.
Andrew E. MacAskill, Garden City, NY, for appellant.
Anne T. Donnelly, District Attorney, Mineola, NY (Jason R. Richards and Hilda Mortensen of counsel), for respondent.
FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, J.P. LARA J. GENOVESI DEBORAH A. DOWLING LOURDES M. VENTURA, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Terence P. Murphy, J.), rendered October 19, 2022, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree and 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, after a hearing pursuant to a stipulation in lieu of motions (Patricia A. Harrington, J.), of the suppression of the defendant's statements to law enforcement officials.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
By pleading guilty, the defendant forfeited his contention that the grand jury proceeding was rendered defective due to a prosecutor's alleged error in relation to certain testimony offered thereat (see People v Hansen, 95 N.Y.2d 227, 230-232; People v Rivera, 226 A.D.3d 929, 931-932; People v Ortiz, 84 A.D.3d 839, 840).
The defendant's assertion that the evidence at a suppression hearing failed to establish probable cause for his arrest is unpreserved for appellate review, since the specific arguments he now makes were not raised before the Supreme Court (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v Cruz, 137 A.D.3d 1158, 1159; People v DeCasta, 34 A.D.3d 828, 828). In any event, the defendant's contention is without merit. The evidence elicited at the hearing established that the police had probable cause to arrest him (see People v Maldonado, 86 N.Y.2d 631, 635-636; People v Nikac, 201 A.D.3d 955, 956; People v Mitchell, 124 A.D.3d 912, 914).
Similarly, the defendant's specific arguments in support of his contention that the Supreme Court should have suppressed certain statements he made to the police following his arrest are unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Summerville, 138 A.D.3d 897, 897; People v Folkes, 43 A.D.3d 956, 957; People v Santiago, 289 A.D.2d 421, 421-422) and, in any event, without merit (see People v Vinson, 199 A.D.3d 942, 943; People v Perez, 150 A.D.3d 1150, 1150-1151).
CONNOLLY, J.P., GENOVESI, DOWLING and VENTURA, JJ., concur.