| People v Morrison |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 03359 [106 AD3d 1201] |
| May 9, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vQuadean Morrison, Appellant. |
—[*1] James R. Farrell, District Attorney, Monticello (Bonnie M. Mitzner of counsel), forrespondent.
Garry, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Sullivan County (LaBuda,J.), rendered March 22, 2012, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimeof criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.
In August 2011, a police officer in the Village of Monticello, Sullivan County founda gun inside the front door of a residence where defendant had been sitting on the porch.Defendant was indicted on several charges, including criminal possession of a weapon inthe second degree, and he moved, among other things, to suppress his statements topolice. A Huntley hearing was conducted, but before a decision was rendered,defendant entered a plea of guilty to one count of criminal possession of a weapon in thesecond degree, in satisfaction of the full indictment. As part of the plea agreement,defendant admitted to prior felony convictions and waived his right to appeal. He wassentenced to a term of seven years in prison followed by five years of postreleasesupervision. Defendant appeals.
Initially, defendant challenges his waiver of the right to appeal, contending that allsuch waivers should be disregarded as contrary to the public interest in preserving dueprocess of law. We disagree. This argument has previously been raised and rejected, as itis well settled that "[w]aiving one's right to appeal as part of a plea agreement is notinherently coercive or against public policy" (People v Galietta, 75 AD3d 753, 754 [2010]; see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d248, [*2]255 [2006]; People v Seaberg, 74NY2d 1, 8-10 [1989]). Moreover, although defendant does not challenge the validity ofhis waiver, our review of the record confirms that his oral and written waiver of the rightto appeal was knowing, intelligent and voluntary (see People v Bradshaw, 18 NY3d 257, 264-265 [2011]; People v Griffin, 100 AD3d1153, 1153-1154 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 1011 [2013]).
Defendant's claim that his statements should have been suppressed is precluded byhis waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Kemp, 94 NY2d 831, 833 [1999];People v Pump, 67 AD3d1041, 1041 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 941 [2010]), and also by his entry ofa guilty plea before a ruling was rendered on his suppression motion (see People vFernandez, 67 NY2d 686, 688 [1986]; People v Adams, 31 AD3d 1063, 1064 [2006], lvdenied 7 NY3d 845 [2006]). His claim that his sentence is harsh and excessive islikewise barred, as his "valid waiver of the right to appeal includes waiver of the right toinvoke [this Court's] interest-of-justice jurisdiction to reduce the sentence" (People vLopez, 6 NY3d at 255; seePeople v Schanz, 82 AD3d 1417, 1417 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 800[2011]).
Mercure, J.P., Lahtinen and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.