Opinion
11808 Ind. 1662/16
07-09-2020
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Albert GIRDNER, Defendant–Appellant.
Janet E. Sabel, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Harold V. Ferguson of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Claire E. Nielsen of counsel), for respondent.
Janet E. Sabel, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Harold V. Ferguson of counsel), for appellant.
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Claire E. Nielsen of counsel), for respondent.
Friedman, J.P., Renwick, Gische, Mazzarelli, Moulton, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Felicia A. Mennin, J.), rendered February 6, 2018, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of three years' probation, unanimously affirmed.
Defendant made a valid waiver of his right to appeal (see People v. Thomas, 34 N.Y.3d 545, 122 N.Y.S.3d 226, 144 N.E.3d 970 [2019] ; People v. Bryant, 28 N.Y.3d 1094, 45 N.Y.S.3d 335, 68 N.E.3d 60 [2016] ), which forecloses review of the denial of his suppression motion. The court's oral colloquy with defendant, supplemented by a written waiver, established a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary appeal waiver (see People v. Thomas, 34 N.Y.3d 545, 560, 563 n 5, 122 N.Y.S.3d 226, 144 N.E.3d 970 [2019] ). Although the subject of an appeal waiver came up after defendant had already agreed to plead guilty, the court conducted a thorough allocution and defendant had the opportunity to reject the plea if he did not want to waive his right to appeal.
Regardless of the validity of defendant's appeal waiver, we find that the court properly denied defendant's suppression motion. There is no basis for disturbing the court's credibility determinations.