People v. Kidd

• Decision Date: 14 November 2012
• Citation: 953 N.Y.S.2d 863,2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 07696,100 A.D.3d 779
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Kenneth KIDD, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

100 A.D.3d 779
953 N.Y.S.2d 863
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 07696

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,
v.
Kenneth KIDD, appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Nov. 14, 2012.

Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Svetlana M. Kornfeind of counsel), for appellant, and appellant pro se.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano,

[953 N.Y.S.2d 864]

Sharon Y. Brodt, and John F. McGoldrick of counsel), for respondent.

[100 A.D.3d 779]Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kron, J.), rendered February 6, 2009, convicting him of attempted burglary in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145;People v. Seaberg, 74 N.Y.2d 1, 11, 543 N.Y.S.2d 968, 541 N.E.2d 1022; cf. People v Pelaez, 100 A.D.3d 803, ––– N.Y.S.2d –––– [decided herewith] ). The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal forecloses appellate review of his challenge to the hearing court's suppression determination (see People v. Kemp, 94 N.Y.2d 831, 833, 703 N.Y.S.2d 59, 724 N.E.2d 754;People v. Holland, 44 A.D.3d 874, 843 N.Y.S.2d 457;People v. Brathwaite, 263 A.D.2d 89, 91, 703 N.Y.S.2d 191), and his statutory speedy trial claim (see People v. Holland, 44 A.D.3d at 874, 843 N.Y.S.2d 457). Further, the defendant's contentions in his pro se supplemental brief regarding an alleged Brady violation (see Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215) and his statutory speedy trial claim were forfeited by his plea of guilty (see People v. Perez, 51 A.D.3d 824, 856 N.Y.S.2d 862;People v. Philips, 30 A.D.3d 621, 817 N.Y.S.2d 373). The defendant's remaining contention in his pro se supplemental brief that his constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated [100 A.D.3d 780]is without merit.

ENG, P.J., SKELOS, DICKERSON and AUSTIN, JJ., concur.