| People v Nugent |
| 2019 NY Slip Op 05025 [173 AD3d 1483] |
| June 20, 2019 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Mark Nugent, Appellant. |
Theodore J. Stein, Woodstock, for appellant.
D. Holley Carnright, District Attorney, Kingston (Joan Gudesblatt Lamb of counsel), forrespondent.
Devine, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Williams, J.),rendered April 7, 2015, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminalpossession of a controlled substance in the third degree.
In 2014, a drug task force obtained information that defendant, who was under probationsupervision in Orange County, was residing and selling narcotics in Ulster County. A probationofficer assigned to the drug task force consulted with his colleagues in Orange County, whorequested that he conduct a home visit and verify that defendant was living in Ulster County. Theprobation officer and other task force members went to the address and encountered defendant,who said that it was not his residence and attempted to shut the front door. Defendant pushed theprobation officer after he stopped defendant from closing the door, at which point several taskforce members swarmed in to subdue defendant. Defendant then told the probation officer thatthere was a gun in the residence, and a warrantless search was conducted that found a shotgunand drugs.
Defendant was charged in an indictment with various offenses. Pursuant to the parties'stipulation, County Court then conducted a hearing to consider, among other things, whether tosuppress the physical evidence recovered from the residence. Before County Court handed downits decision, defendant pleaded guilty to one count of criminal possession of a controlledsubstance in the third degree in full satisfaction of the indictment and another matter, and furtherwaived his right to appeal. County Court agreed to sentence defendant to six years in prison to befollowed by two years of postrelease supervision, but warned him that it could impose a prisonsentence of up to nine years if he was charged with any new offenses before sentencing.Defendant was subsequently charged with a new offense and, following an Outleyhearing, County Court found that he had violated the sentencing condition and sentenced him toeight years in prison to be followed by two years of postrelease supervision. Defendant appeals,and we now affirm.
Defendant's sole contention on appeal is that the physical evidence recovered during thewarrantless search should have been suppressed, and the record contains an order from CountyCourt denying that relief. The order was signed the same date as the guilty plea, however, andCounty Court stated that it would not commit to the plea agreement unless defendant pleadedguilty "before the [c]ourt issued its" decision. Defendant did so and, during the plea colloquy,acknowledged that the order had not been issued and that his guilty plea would foreclose hisability to "question what happened at those suppression hearings." Thus, "[b]y pleading guiltyafter the suppression hearing but before a decision was rendered . . . , defendantforfeited his right to appellate review of all claims related to that . . . motion" (People v Rodriguez, 118 AD3d1182, 1182-1183 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 964 [2014]; see People vFernandez, 67 NY2d 686, 688 [1986]; People v Otto, 149 AD3d 1275, 1275 [2017]; People v Brabham, 112 AD3d1066, 1067 [2013]).
Lynch, J.P., Mulvey, Aarons and Rumsey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.