Opinion
1452 KA 16–00444
02-02-2018
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Andre D. THOMAS, Defendant–Appellant.
THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (TIMOTHY P. MURPHY OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT. JOHN J. FLYNN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (DANIEL J. PUNCH OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (TIMOTHY P. MURPHY OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT.
JOHN J. FLYNN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (DANIEL J. PUNCH OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, DEJOSEPH, NEMOYER, AND CURRAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Memorandum:Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree ( Penal Law § 265.03[3] ). Contrary to defendant's contention, his waiver of the right to appeal is valid (see generally People v. Bradshaw, 18 N.Y.3d 257, 264, 938 N.Y.S.2d 254, 961 N.E.2d 645 [2011] ; People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 [2006] ). People v. Brown, 296 A.D.2d 860, 745 N.Y.S.2d 368 (4th Dept. 2002), lv denied 98 N.Y.2d 767, 752 N.Y.S.2d 7, 781 N.E.2d 919 (2002), relied on by defendant, is distinguishable. In Brown, we held that the plea court's "single reference to defendant's right to appeal [was] insufficient to establish that the court engage[d] the defendant in an adequate colloquy to ensure that the waiver of the right to appeal was a knowing and voluntary choice" ( id. at 860, 745 N.Y.S.2d 368 [emphasis added and internal quotation marks omitted] ). Here, in contrast, Supreme Court provided defendant with an extensive and detailed description of the proposed waiver of the right to appeal before securing his consent thereto. Defendant's valid waiver of the right to appeal forecloses his suppression claim (see People v. Kemp, 94 N.Y.2d 831, 833, 703 N.Y.S.2d 59, 724 N.E.2d 754 [1999] ; People v. Scott, 144 A.D.3d 1597, 1597–1598, 40 N.Y.S.3d 689 [4th Dept. 2016], lv denied 28 N.Y.3d 1150, 52 N.Y.S.3d 302, 74 N.E.3d 687 [2017] ; People v. Verse, 61 A.D.3d 1409, 1409, 877 N.Y.S.2d 564 [4th Dept. 2009], lv denied 12 N.Y.3d 930, 884 N.Y.S.2d 711, 912 N.E.2d 1092 [2009] ).
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.