Opinion
2017-262 D CR
02-20-2020
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Gerard X. SYKES, Appellant.
Dutchess County Public Defender (Larwence D. King of counsel), for appellant. Dutchess County District Attorney (Kirsten A. Rappleyea of counsel), for respondent.
Dutchess County Public Defender (Larwence D. King of counsel), for appellant.
Dutchess County District Attorney (Kirsten A. Rappleyea of counsel), for respondent.
PRESENT: THOMAS A. ADAMS, P.J., TERRY JANE RUDERMAN, ELIZABETH H. EMERSON, JJ.
ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
Defendant moved to, among other things, preclude the People from using at trial certain statements allegedly made by him, on the ground that the People had failed to provide him with a timely CPL 710.30 notice. The People opposed the motion, and the Justice Court denied this branch of the motion. Thereafter, defendant pleaded guilty to an added charge of harassment in the second degree ( Penal Law § 240.26 [3] ) in satisfaction of the accusatory instrument and, as a condition of pleading guilty, defendant waived his right to appeal. In the same proceeding, the Justice Court imposed sentence.
On appeal, defendant contends that his plea was insufficient and should be vacated, since the court had failed to advise him of all of the constitutional rights that he was forfeiting by pleading guilty. He further argues that his oral appeal waiver was deficient and, therefore, he is not precluded on appeal from raising his claim pertaining to the sufficiency of his guilty plea. Additionally, he contends that the Justice Court should have granted the branch of his motion seeking to preclude the People from using at trial certain statements allegedly made by him, on the ground that the People had failed to provide a timely CPL 710.30 notice.
For the reasons stated in People v. Sykes (––– Misc 3d ––––, 2020 NY Slip Op –––– [appeal No. 2017-261 D CR], decided herewith), the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
ADAMS, P.J., RUDERMAN and EMERSON, JJ., concur.