From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Harris

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Oct 19, 2016
143 A.D.3d 911 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)

Opinion

10-19-2016

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Dennis HARRIS, appellant.

Law Office of Thomas R. Villecco, P.C., Jericho, NY, for appellant. Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, NY (Jason R. Richards and John B. Latella of counsel), for respondent.


Law Office of Thomas R. Villecco, P.C., Jericho, NY, for appellant.

Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, NY (Jason R. Richards and John B. Latella of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Murphy, J.), dated April 27, 2015, convicting him of attempted criminal possession of a forged instrument, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Under the circumstances presented, the defendant's contention that a showup identification conducted by members of the Nassau County Police Department on June 16, 2013, should have been suppressed was forfeited by the entry of his plea of guilty. The record on appeal shows that the hearing court never ruled on that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress the showup identification, and the omission was never brought to the hearing court's attention prior to the defendant's election to enter a plea of guilty. By pleading guilty after the Wade hearing (see United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 ) had taken place but before a decision was rendered thereon, the defendant forfeited his right to appellate review of the undecided issue (see People v. Lleras, 140 A.D.3d 985, 32 N.Y.S.3d 510 ; People v. Newkirk, 133 A.D.3d 1364, 20 N.Y.S.3d 507 ; People v. Russell, 128 A.D.3d 1383, 7 N.Y.S.3d 790 ; People v. Rodriguez, 118 A.D.3d 1182, 987 N.Y.S.2d 264 ; People v. Gillett, 105 A.D.3d 1444, 963 N.Y.S.2d 906 ; People v. Rosario, 64 A.D.3d 1217, 881 N.Y.S.2d 788 ).

In light of our determination, we need not reach the defendant's contentions regarding the limited scope of his appeal waiver or the merits of the suppression motion.

CHAMBERS, J.P., DICKERSON, MILLER and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Harris

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Oct 19, 2016
143 A.D.3d 911 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
Case details for

People v. Harris

Case Details

Full title:The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Dennis HARRIS, appellant.

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: Oct 19, 2016

Citations

143 A.D.3d 911 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
143 A.D.3d 911
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 6841

Citing Cases

People v. Woody

The record reflects that the court did not make a determination regarding the suggestive nature of the array…

People v. Sadiku

However, in fact, the record contains an order by Judge Drysdale, dated April 25, 2017, the same day that…