Opinion
1518 KA 15–00570
12-22-2017
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Latroy D. SAMPSON, Defendant–Appellant.
TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (DAVID R. JUERGENS OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT. SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (JOSEPH R. PLUKAS OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (DAVID R. JUERGENS OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT.
SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (JOSEPH R. PLUKAS OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CARNI, 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] ). Defendant's valid, general waiver of his right to appeal forecloses his challenge to County Court's suppression ruling (see People v. Sanders, 25 N.Y.3d 337, 342, 12 N.Y.S.3d 593, 34 N.E.3d 344 [2015] ). Contrary to defendant's contention, his "waiver [of the right to appeal] is not invalid on the ground that the court did not specifically inform [him] that his general waiver of the right to appeal encompassed the court's suppression ruling [ ]" ( People v. Brand, 112 A.D.3d 1320, 1321, 976 N.Y.S.2d 906 [4th Dept. 2013], lv denied 23 N.Y.3d 961, 988 N.Y.S.2d 568, 11 N.E.3d 718 [2014] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v. Goodwin, 147 A.D.3d 1352, 1352, 46 N.Y.S.3d 448 [4th Dept. 2017], lv denied 29 N.Y.3d 1032, 62 N.Y.S.3d 301, 84 N.E.3d 973 [2017] ). Contrary to defendant's further contention, his " ‘monosyllabic affirmative responses to questioning by [the court] do not render his [waiver of the right to appeal] unknowing and involuntary’ " ( People v. Harris, 94 A.D.3d 1484, 1485, 942 N.Y.S.2d 854 [4th Dept. 2012], lv denied 19 N.Y.3d 961, 950 N.Y.S.2d 113, 973 N.E.2d 211 [2012] ; see People v. Hand, 147 A.D.3d 1326, 1326–1327, 45 N.Y.S.3d 832 [4th Dept. 2017], lv denied 29 N.Y.3d 998, 57 N.Y.S.3d 719, 80 N.E.3d 412 [2017] ). Finally, there is no authority supporting defendant's assertion that a waiver of the right to appeal tendered in connection with a plea to the top count of an indictment should be automatically subjected to "higher scrutiny" on appeal.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.