Opinion
05-29-2024
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Luis GUZMAN, appellant
Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (Denise A. Corsí of counsel), for appellant. Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove and Ann Bordley of counsel; Lauren Slattery on the brief), for respondent.
Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (Denise A. Corsí of counsel), for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove and Ann Bordley of counsel; Lauren Slattery on the brief), for respondent.
BETSY BARROS, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, WILLIAM G. FORD, CARL J. LANDICINO, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court Kings County (Laura R. Johnson, J.), rendered June 8, 2022, convicting him of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant’s contention, he knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal, both orally and in writing, at the time he entered his plea of guilty (see People v. Thomas, 34 N.Y.3d 545, 122 N.Y.S.3d 226, 144 N.E.3d 970; People v. Mack, 168 A.D.3d 1100, 92 N.Y.S.3d 404; People v. Corbin, 121 A.D.3d 803, 993 N.Y.S.2d 746). The record reveals that the Supreme Court adequately explained, and the defendant acknowledged that he understood, the separate and distinct nature of the waiver of the right to appeal (see People v. Carbin, 121 A.D.3d at 805, 993 N.Y.S.2d 746).
Accordingly, the defendant’s valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of his contention that the sentence imposed was excessive (see People v. Bradshaw, 18 N.Y.3d 257, 263, 267, 938 N.Y.S.2d 254, 961 N.E.2d 645; People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 255, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145; People v. Lawrence, 226 A.D.3d 827, 208 N.Y.S.3d 305, 2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 01938, *1 [2d Dept.]; People v. Miles, 189 A.D.3d 890, 890, 133 N.Y.S.3d 485; People v. Lovick, 127 AD.3d 1108, 1109, 5 N.Y.S.3d 878).
Moreover, the defendant’s contention that the ruling of the United States Supreme Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assoc., Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 142 S.Ct. 2111, 213 L.Ed.2d 387 rendered the entire firearm licensing system of New York State unconstitutional is unpreserved for appellate review, as the defendant failed to raise a constitutional challenge before the Supreme Court (see People v. Cabrera, 41 N.Y.3d S5, 42, 51, 207 N.Y.S.3d 18, 230 N.E.3d 1082; People v. Guyton, 222 A.D.3d 879, 879, 199 N.Y.S.3d 711). We decline to review the unpre- served contention in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.
BARROS, J.P., CHAMBERS, FORD and LANDICINO, JJ., concur.