Opinion
907 KA 19-00163
12-23-2021
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, v. MARIO SADDLER, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (ALLYSON L. KEHL-WIERZBOWSKI OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. JOHN J. FLYNN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (MINDY F. VANLEUVAN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (ALLYSON L. KEHL-WIERZBOWSKI OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
JOHN J. FLYNN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (MINDY F. VANLEUVAN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, NEMOYER, BANNISTER, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Christopher J. Burns, J.), rendered November 20, 2018. The judgment convicted defendant upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and resisting arrest.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of, inter alia, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03 [3]). For reasons stated in its decision, we conclude that Supreme Court (Wolfgang, J.) properly refused to suppress the subject gun (see also People v McGee, ___ A.D.3d ___, ___ [Dec. 23, 2021] [4th Dept 2021]; People v Moore, 191 A.D.3d 1415, 1416-1417 [4th Dept 2021], lv denied 36 N.Y.3d 1122 [2021]). Contrary to defendant's further contention, the court did not improperly curtail his cross-examination of the witnesses at the suppression hearing (see People v Carroll, 303 A.D.2d 200, 201 [1st Dept 2003], lv denied 100 N.Y.2d 560 [2003]; People v Presha, 190 A.D.2d 1005, 1005 [4th Dept 1993], lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 891 [1993]), particularly because the precluded questions involved collateral issues with no direct bearing on the suppression analysis (see People v Arnau, 58 N.Y.2d 27, 37 [1982], cert denied 468 U.S. 1217 [1984]; People v Patino, 97 A.D.2d 552, 553 [2d Dept 1983] [Gibbons, J., concurring]). Defendant's allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel are forfeited by his guilty plea (see People v Petgen, 55 N.Y.2d 529, 534-535 [1982], rearg denied 57 N.Y.2d 674 [1982]). Finally, contrary to his assertion on appeal, defendant never sought to withdraw his guilty plea during the 2018 sentencing proceeding, and Supreme Court (Burns, J.) thus could not have erred in failing to hold a hearing on a motion that defendant never made.