Opinion
2014-01-9
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Chris SIMMONS, Defendant–Appellant.
Richard M. Greenberg, Office of the Appellate Defender, New York (Rahul Sharma of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Karinna M. Rossi of counsel), for respondent.
Richard M. Greenberg, Office of the Appellate Defender, New York (Rahul Sharma of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Karinna M. Rossi of counsel), for respondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. McLaughlin, J. at suppression hearing; Michael R. Sonberg, J. at plea and sentencing), rendered February 1, 2012, as amended February 2, 2012, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony drug offender whose prior felony conviction was a violent felony, to a term of 6 years, unanimously affirmed.
“Defendant's written waiver, taken together with the oral colloquy in which defendant confirmed he understood he was giving up his right to appeal, established that the waiver was knowing, intelligent and voluntary” (People v. Caviness, 95 A.D.3d 622, 943 N.Y.S.2d 882 [1st Dept.2012], lv. denied 19 N.Y.3d 995, 951 N.Y.S.2d 471, 975 N.E.2d 917 [2012]; see also People v. Johnson, 14 N.Y.3d 483, 486, 903 N.Y.S.2d 299, 929 N.E.2d 361 [2010]; compare People v. Bradshaw, 18 N.Y.3d 257, 938 N.Y.S.2d 254, 961 N.E.2d 645 [2011] ). In the oral colloquy, defendant unequivocally stated that he understood the written waiver.
Defendant's waiver forecloses review of his challenge to the denial of his suppression motion and his claim that his sentence is excessive. As alternative holdings, we find that the suppression motion was properly denied, and we perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. GONZALEZ, P.J., TOM, RENWICK, MANZANET–DANIELS, FEINMAN, JJ., concur.