From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Woody

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 30, 1997
240 A.D.2d 770 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

June 30, 1997

Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Palmieri, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the People's contention, the defendant did not waive, as part of his general waiver of his right to appeal, his right to seek review of the denial of that branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress statements made by him to law enforcement officials. The defendant was never informed at the plea allocution that his plea was conditioned upon his waiver of his statutory right to seek review of the suppression court's ruling ( see, CPL 710.70; People v. Bryant, 225 A.D.2d 786, 787; People v. Bray, 154 A.D.2d 692, 693).

In any event, the County Court properly denied suppression of the defendant's statements. Contrary to the defendant's contention, the police entry into his home did not violate New York v. Payton ( 445 U.S. 573) warranting the suppression of his statements as the fruit of an unlawful entry ( see, People v. Harris, 77 N.Y.2d 434). The court's determination that the defendant consented to the police entry into his home was amply supported by the record ( see, People v. Murphy, 55 N.Y.2d 819, 820). Likewise, the court's finding that the defendant was not in custody at that time is also supported by the record ( see, People v. Hicks, 68 N.Y.2d 234, 240; People v. Yukl, 25 N.Y.2d 585, 589). Further, the record amply supports the court's determination that the defendant's comment to his stepson did not constitute an "unequivocal" statement which effectively invoked his right to counsel prior to his being questioned by the police at the station house ( see, People v. Hartley, 65 N.Y.2d 703; People v. Rowell, 59 N.Y.2d 727; People v. Navarro, 229 A.D.2d 403.

The sentencing court's denial of the defendant's motion to withdraw his plea of guilty was not an improvident exercise of discretion ( see, CPL 220.60; People v. Polite, 235 A.D.2d 436; People v. McCaskell, 206 A.D.2d 547, 548).

The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review ( see, CPL 470.05) or without merit.

Bracken, J.P., Copertino, Santucci and McGinity, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Woody

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 30, 1997
240 A.D.2d 770 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

People v. Woody

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. DARRYL WOODY, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jun 30, 1997

Citations

240 A.D.2d 770 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
660 N.Y.S.2d 31

Citing Cases

People v. Vallejo

elligently entered survives his waiver of the right to appeal, but defendant failed to preserve that…

People v. Tominaro

The defendant's contention that he did not effectively waive his right to appeal must be rejected. The…