| People v Williams |
| 2024 NY Slip Op 02601 [227 AD3d 480] |
| May 9, 2024 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Edward Williams, Also Known as Edwin Williams,Appellant. |
Jenay Nurse Guilford, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Abigail Everett ofcounsel), for appellant.
Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx (Elliott R. Hamilton of counsel), forrespondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Steven J. Hornstein, J.), rendered May 3,2023, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weaponin the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of3
Defendant made a valid waiver of his right to appeal (see People v Bryant, 28 NY3d1094 [2016]; see generallyPeople v Thomas, 34 NY3d 545 [2019], cert denied 589 US &mdash,140 S Ct 2634 [2020]). During the plea proceeding, the court elicited admissions of factand guilt from defendant prior to explaining the trial rights that defendant wasautomatically forfeiting by pleading guilty and the waiver of the right to appeal. It wouldhave been better practice for the court to discuss with defendant the trial rights that hewas giving up and the waiver of his appellate rights before obtaining an admission ofguilt. However, defendant knew that waiving his right to appeal was part of the pleabargain. The record establishes that defendant had a "full appreciation of theconsequences" of the waiver and that the waiver was voluntary under the "totality of thecircumstances" (Thomas, 34 NY3d at 559-560; People v Seaberg, 74NY2d 1, 11 [1989]). The combination of the court's oral colloquy with defendant, thewritten waiver that defendant signed after consultation with counsel, defendant'sexperience with the criminal justice system and the favorable plea bargain he obtainedestablishes that defendant had been adequately apprised of the nature of the appellaterights being waived.
The valid waiver of the right to appeal forecloses review of defendant's suppressionclaim. Regardless of the validity of the waiver, upon our in camera review of the searchwarrant materials and the minutes of the search warrant application hearing, we concludethat there was probable cause for issuance of the search warrant (see Spinelli v UnitedStates, 393 US 410 [1969]; Aguilar v Texas, 378 US 108 [1964]). The searchwarrant also described with sufficient particularity the premises to be searched andproperty to be seized, and satisfied the requirements of CPL 690.45.
Defendant's Second Amendment challenge to his conviction is likewise waived (see People v Johnson, 225AD3d 453 [1st Dept 2024]). Moreover, the claim is not properly before us becausedefendant has not served upon the Attorney General notice of his constitutional challenge(see Executive Law § 71; People v Jones, 122 AD3d 549, 549-550 [1st Dept2014], lv denied 25 NY3d 1166 [2015]). In any event, defendant has notestablished that he has standing to bring the claim, or that his conviction isunconstitutional under New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v Bruen(597 US 1 [2022]) (see Johnson, 225 AD3d at 455).
The waiver of the right to appeal also forecloses review of defendant's excessivesentence claim. In any event, we perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.Concur—Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Singh, Kapnick, Gesmer, Rodriguez, JJ.