People v. David

• Court: New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
• Citation: 234 A.D.2d 314,651 N.Y.S.2d 316
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Charles DAVID, Appellant.
• Decision Date: 02 December 1996

Page 316

651 N.Y.S.2d 316 234 A.D.2d 314 The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent,
v.
Charles DAVID, Appellant. Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division,
Second Department. Dec. 2, 1996.

John F. Clennan, Ronkonkoma, for appellant, and appellant pro se.

Michael E. Bongiorno, District Attorney, New City (Lisa B. Cohen, of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Rockland County (Nelson, J.), rendered May 2, 1995, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the record of the plea proceedings unequivocally demonstrates that his waiver of the right to appeal, which expressly encompassed all pretrial suppression rulings, was voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently entered (see, People v. Callahan, 80 N.Y.2d 273, 590 N.Y.S.2d 46, 604 N.E.2d 108; People v. Moissett, 76 N.Y.2d 909, 563 N.Y.S.2d 43, 564 N.E.2d 653; People v. Seaberg, 74 N.Y.2d 1, 543 N.Y.S.2d 968, 541 N.E.2d 1022). Accordingly, the current challenges to the court's suppression ruling set forth in the defense counsel's brief and in the defendant's supplemental pro se brief are not properly presented for appellate review (see, People v. Lyle, 221 A.D.2d 475, 633 N.Y.S.2d 570; People v. Velasquez, 181 A.D.2d 751, 581 N.Y.S.2d 76).

ROSENBLATT, J.P., and SULLIVAN, COPERTINO and JOY, JJ., concur.