Opinion
16271 Ind. No. 2819/16 Case No. 2018–1238
12-20-2022
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Chrishawn GRAVES, Defendant–Appellant.
Twyla Carter, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Ronald Zapata of counsel), for appellant. Alvin L. Bragg, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Molly K. Morgan of counsel), for respondent.
Twyla Carter, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Ronald Zapata of counsel), for appellant.
Alvin L. Bragg, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Molly K. Morgan of counsel), for respondent.
Manzanet–Daniels, J.P., Kapnick, Friedman, Scarpulla, Mendez, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Anthony J. Ferrara, J.), rendered May 4, 2017, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of three years’ probation, unanimously affirmed.
The court properly denied defendant's suppression motion. An officer testified that he arrested defendant after learning that he had several outstanding warrants. Nothing in defense counsel's initial or subsequent moving papers or arguments at the hearing sufficed to alert the People or the hearing court that defendant was challenging the validity of the warrants. At most, counsel alluded to issues applicable to warrantless arrests. Accordingly, defendant's present argument that the People failed to meet their initial burden to establish probable cause is unpreserved (see People v. Miranda, 27 N.Y.3d 931, 30 N.Y.S.3d 600, 50 N.E.3d 224 [2016] ; People v. Sankara, 157 A.D.3d 495, 496, 69 N.Y.S.3d 23 [1st Dept. 2018], lv denied 31 N.Y.3d 1096, 79 N.Y.S.3d 108, 103 N.E.3d 1255 [2018] ), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that the court properly found that the officer had probable cause to arrest defendant based on warrants that went unchallenged at the hearing (see People v. Boone, 269 A.D.2d 459, 459, 704 N.Y.S.2d 265 [2d Dept. 2000], lv denied 95 N.Y.2d 850, 714 N.Y.S.2d 1, 736 N.E.2d 862 [2000] ).
By pleading guilty, defendant forfeited review of his procedural arguments concerning the grand jury presentation (see People v. Carlton, 120 A.D.3d 1443, 1444, 991 N.Y.S.2d 806 [3d Dept. 2014], lv denied 25 N.Y.3d 1070, 12 N.Y.S.3d 621, 34 N.E.3d 372 [2015] ; People v. Batista, 299 A.D.2d 270, 753 N.Y.S.2d 47 [1st Dept. 2002], lv denied 99 N.Y.2d 626, 760 N.Y.S.2d 106, 790 N.E.2d 280 [2003] ). Defendant's claims do not implicate the jurisdictional validity of the indictment or otherwise survive a guilty plea (see People v. Hansen, 95 N.Y.2d 227, 230–231, 715 N.Y.S.2d 369, 738 N.E.2d 773 [2000] ). In any event, we find these claims unavailing (see e.g. People v. Martinez, 141 A.D.3d 429, 33 N.Y.S.3d 898 [1st Dept. 2016], lv denied 28 N.Y.3d 972, 43 N.Y.S.3d 259, 66 N.E.3d 5 [2016] ).