Opinion
October 18, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Finnegan, J.).
Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
Having expressly agreed to withdraw all motions in consideration of his guilty plea to one count of assault in the first degree in satisfaction of the charges contained in Indictment No. 2871/85, the defendant has waived his right to challenge the court's denial of that branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony (see, People v Lantigua, 179 A.D.2d 826; People v. Gary, 179 A.D.2d 821; People v Williams, 167 A.D.2d 491; People v. Battista, 167 A.D.2d 344; People v. Tavarez, 151 A.D.2d 793).
Furthermore, by knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily pleading guilty, the defendant has forfeited his right to raise an allegation of error with respect to an alleged Rosario violation. With few exceptions, a guilty plea waives all nonjurisdictional defects in a criminal proceeding (see, People v. Williams, 185 A.D.2d 260; People v. Gerber, 182 A.D.2d 252). A Rosario violation does not fall within any of the exceptions to the rule of waiver and thus, the defendant's guilty plea precludes appellate review of his Rosario claim (People v West, 184 A.D.2d 743; People v. Cusani, 153 A.D.2d 574; see also, People v. Rojas, 169 A.D.2d 464).
Finally, concerning the defendant's conviction for bail jumping in the first degree under Indictment No. 2347/88, we have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant's assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel's application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted (see, Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738; People v. Paige, 54 A.D.2d 631; cf., People v. Gonzalez, 47 N.Y.2d 606). Balletta, J.P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.