Opinion
2017–03938 Ind.No. 1967/15
07-15-2020
The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Juan JOHNSON, Appellant.
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (Alice R.B. Cullina of counsel), for appellant. Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Sholom J. Twersky, and Andrew S. Durham of counsel), for respondent.
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (Alice R.B. Cullina of counsel), for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Sholom J. Twersky, and Andrew S. Durham of counsel), for respondent.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., ROBERT J. MILLER, BETSY BARROS, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (William M. Harrington, J.), rendered on March 28, 2017, convicting him of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree (three counts), upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
A waiver of the right to appeal will not be enforced unless it was knowing, intelligently, and voluntarily made (see People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 ; People v. Callahan, 80 N.Y.2d 273, 590 N.Y.S.2d 46, 604 N.E.2d 108 ). Furthermore, the waiver is effective only when the record demonstrates that the defendant has had a full appreciation of the consequences of the waiver (see People v. Mack, 168 A.D.3d 1100, 92 N.Y.S.3d 404 ; People v. Cassadean, 160 A.D.3d 655, 72 N.Y.S.3d 575 ; People v. Brown, 122 A.D.3d 133, 992 N.Y.S.2d 297 ).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, he knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal at the time he entered his plea of guilty (see People v. Mack, 168 A.D.3d 1100, 92 N.Y.S.3d 404 ; People v. Moore, 140 A.D.3d 1091, 34 N.Y.S.3d 147 ; People v. Corbin, 121 A.D.3d 803, 993 N.Y.S.2d 746 ). The record reveals that the Supreme Court adequately explained, and that the defendant acknowledged that he understood, the separate and distinct nature of the waiver of the right to appeal, and the defendant signed a written waiver which adequately supplemented the oral colloquy.
The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes review of his challenge to the Supreme Court's suppression determination (see People v. Sanders, 25 N.Y.3d 337, 12 N.Y.S.3d 593, 34 N.E.3d 344 ; People v. Kemp, 94 N.Y.2d 831, 833–834, 703 N.Y.S.2d 59, 724 N.E.2d 754 ).
DILLON, J.P., MILLER, BARROS and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.