| People v Keene |
| 2021 NY Slip Op 01290 [192 AD3d 1195] |
| March 4, 2021 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Takiem Keene, Appellant. |
Stephen W. Herrick, Public Defender, Albany (James A. Bartosik Jr. of counsel), forappellant.
P. David Soares, District Attorney, Albany (Christopher D. Horn of counsel), forrespondent.
Egan Jr., J.P. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County (Young, J.),rendered January 11, 2018, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminalpossession of a weapon in the second degree.
On February 25, 2017, police stopped a green 2001 Subaru wagon being driven by defendantafter observing several Vehicle and Traffic Law violations. Defendant was unable to provide thepolice with a driver's license but, after running his name through the Department of MotorVehicles, police discovered that defendant's license was revoked and arrested him. A subsequentinventory search of the vehicle uncovered a .22 caliber revolver in a box on the rear passengerseat of the vehicle. Defendant was subsequently charged by indictment with criminal possessionof a weapon in the second degree. Defendant filed an omnibus motion seeking to, among otherthings, suppress the revolver seized from the vehicle as well as certain statements that he made topolice. Following a suppression hearing, County Court (Carter, J.) denied defendant'ssuppression motion, and defendant subsequently pleaded guilty to the indictment and waived hisright to appeal. He was thereafter sentenced, as a second felony offender, in accordance with theplea agreement to a prison term of five years to be followed by five years of postreleasesupervision. Defendant appeals.
Defendant contends that, despite his waiver of appeal, he is not precluded from seekingreview of the denial of his suppression motion because he did not specifically waive this right aspart of the panoply of rights that he waived during his plea colloquy. We disagree. Although theplea allocution did not specifically indicate that defendant's right to appeal the suppressionrulings was encompassed in his waiver of appeal, he is nevertheless precluded from appealingsame "as no particular litany is required and a general, comprehensive waiver of appeal issufficient for this purpose" (People vFeurtado, 172 AD3d 1620, 1620 [2019] [internal quotation marks and citationsomitted], lv denied 34 NY3d 931 [2019]). County Court (Young, J.) informed defendantthat the waiver of his right to appeal was a part of his plea agreement and that it was separate andapart from the trial related rights that he was forfeiting by pleading guilty. Defendant indicatedthat he had adequate time to confer with his attorney and that he understood that he was forgoinghis right to appeal his conviction. He then executed a written waiver of appeal in open court and,after reviewing same and conferring with his attorney, indicated that he understood it. Uponreview, and in consideration of the fact that defendant is a 39-year-old second felony offenderwith experience in the criminal justice system, we are satisfied that he knowingly, voluntarily andintelligently waived his right to appeal (see People v Dolison, 189 AD3d 1779, 1780 [2020]; People v Danzy, 182 AD3d 920,922 [2020], lv denied 35 NY3d 1043 [2020[*2]]).Accordingly, given the validity of his appeal waiver, defendant is foreclosed from challengingthe denial of his suppression motion (seePeople v Sanders, 25 NY3d 337, 342 [2015]; People v Kemp, 94 NY2d 831, 833[1999]; People v Danielson, 170AD3d 1430, 1431 [2019], lv denied 33 NY3d 1030 [2019], cert denied 589US &mdash, 140 S Ct 486 [2019]; People v Saunders, 162 AD3d 1217, 1218 [2018], lv denied32 NY3d 1128 [2018]).
Clark, Pritzker, Reynolds Fitzgerald and Colangelo, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.