Opinion
17603-, 17603A Ind. Nos. 4264/18 2599/19 Case Nos. 2020-01808, 2020-01809
03-30-2023
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Aaron CARSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Ben A. Schatz of counsel), for appellant. Alvin L. Bragg, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Michael D. Tarbutton of counsel), for respondent.
Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Ben A. Schatz of counsel), for appellant.
Alvin L. Bragg, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Michael D. Tarbutton of counsel), for respondent.
Renwick, A.P.J., Gesmer, Singh, Gonza´lez, Scarpulla, JJ.
Judgments, Supreme Court, New York County (Abraham L. Clott, J. at motions; Gregory Carro, J. at pleas and sentencing), rendered January 29, 2020, convicting defendant of attempted murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent prison terms of 11 years and 3 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.
Defendant made a valid waiver of his right to appeal, which forecloses review of his suppression and excessive sentence claims. The record of the plea proceeding, along with the detailed written waiver that defendant reviewed with counsel, established that defendant understood the rights being waived (see People v. Thomas, 34 N.Y.3d 545, 559, 122 N.Y.S.3d 226, 144 N.E.3d 970 [2019], cert denied 589 U.S. ––––, 140 S.Ct. 2634, 206 L.Ed.2d 512 [2020] ). The court adequately explained defendant's appellate rights without conflating them with those automatically forfeited upon his guilty plea (see People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 [2006] ). Defendant also argues that the waiver was invalid because the court's explanation came after defendant's factual recitation. However, the minutes show that the People requested that defendant waive his right to appeal at the beginning of the plea proceeding.
We also find defendant's suppression claims unavailing and perceive no basis for reducing defendant's sentence.