| People v Anderson |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 04307 [63 AD3d 1191] |
| June 4, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v TerranceAnderson, Appellant. |
—[*1] Robert M. Carney, District Attorney, Schenectady (Gerald A. Dwyer of counsel), forrespondent.
Garry, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County (Drago, J.),rendered July 2, 2008, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminalpossession of a controlled substance in the third degree.
In a "buy and bust" operation in the City of Schenectady, Schenectady County, defendantwas arrested after his vehicle was stopped, a search of his person was conducted, and cocainewas found in his sock. County Court granted his motion for a Mapp/Dunaway hearing todetermine whether the stop and the search were supported by probable cause. In open court justbefore the hearing began, defendant rejected a proposed plea agreement that would have requiredhim to waive his right to appeal. Following the hearing, the court denied defendant's motion tosuppress the drug evidence.
The parties subsequently advised County Court that a new plea offer had been extended todefendant. In outlining the proposal before the court, the prosecutor emphasized that the bargainwould include defendant's waiver of his right to appeal, including all issues related to theMapp/Dunaway hearing. Defendant's counsel confirmed that he had explained thewaiver of appeal to defendant. Defendant expressed interest in accepting the plea offer at thistime, but the court observed hesitation in his body language and reminded him of thepresumption of innocence and his right to a trial. The matter was adjourned in anticipation oftrial.[*2]
Several hours later, however, the parties reconvened andadvised County Court that, after further consideration and consultation with his counsel,defendant had decided to accept the new plea offer. The court then engaged in a thorough anddetailed allocution, which included defendant's explicit confirmation that he understood that theright to appeal is not ordinarily given up as part of a guilty plea, but that he was being asked towaive it as part of the proposed plea agreement. During the course of the proceeding, defendantalso executed a written waiver of the right to appeal which, among other things, specificallystated that he understood that by waiving his right to appeal he was giving up rights beyondthose given up by pleading guilty, and that the waiver included rulings made in connection withthe suppression hearing.
Defendant now appeals, contending that his waiver of the right to appeal was not knowing,intelligent, and voluntary because County Court did not adequately distinguish the waiver fromthe rights automatically forfeited by pleading guilty. Contrary to defendant's claim, the recordreveals that the court thoroughly and completely addressed defendant's waiver of the right toappeal and did not improperly suggest that he was forfeiting rather than waiving these rights (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248,256 [2006]; compare People vMoyett, 7 NY3d 892, 892-893 [2006]). The allocution was fully consistent with the"better practice" recommended by the Court of Appeals (People v Lopez, 6 NY3d at257). Further, and "even better" (id.), defendant also executed the written waiver, whichwas clear and explicit in its terms. Thus, the record fully demonstrates that defendant understoodthat his waiver of the right to appeal was separate and distinct from those rights he forfeited bypleading guilty and was part of the " 'carefully orchestrated bargain' " of his plea (People vSeaberg, 74 NY2d 1, 10 [1989], quoting People v Prescott, 66 NY2d 216, 220[1985], cert denied 475 US 1150 [1986]). The waiver was therefore knowing, intelligent,and voluntary (see People v Grant,60 AD3d 1202, 1203 [2009]; People v Bunce, 45 AD3d 982, 984 [2007], lv denied 10NY3d 809 [2008]). Its validity forecloses this Court's review of defendant's claims related to theMapp/Dunaway hearing (seePeople v Collins, 53 AD3d 932, 933 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 831 [2008]).
Finally, defendant asserts that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. "A challenge tothe effectiveness of counsel is precluded by a waiver of appeal except to the extent that itimpacts on the voluntariness of the plea" (People v McDuffie, 43 AD3d 559, 560 [2007], lv denied 9NY3d 992 [2007] [citations omitted]). To the extent, if any, that defendant's claims may havesurvived his valid waiver, they are unpreserved for appellate review because he failed to move towithdraw his plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction (see People v Allen, 15 AD3d 689, 690 [2005]).
Cardona, P.J., Peters, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.