Opinion
February 26, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Steven Barrett, J.).
Defendant's valid and explicit waiver at his plea allocution of his right to raise any suppression issues constitutes a withdrawal of his previously decided suppression motion, and thus forecloses appellate review of his instant claims ( see, People v. Carter, 239 A.D.2d 156, lv denied 90 N.Y.2d 902). In any event, the court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress the photographic identification because the evidence adduced at the Wade hearing established that the identification procedure was fair and nonsuggestive. The information on the back of defendant's photograph "did not introduce an element of suggestiveness * * * inasmuch as the [witness] * * * did not even notice the information until after she had already made her identification" ( People v. Gourdine, 223 A.D.2d 428, 428-429, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 848; see also, United States v. Person, 478 F.2d 659, 661).
We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion.
Concur — Milonas, J. P., Williams, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.