People v. Martin

• Decision Date: 26 October 1987
• Citation: 133 A.D.2d 852,520 N.Y.S.2d 214
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Ricardo MARTIN, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 214

520 N.Y.S.2d 214

133 A.D.2d 852

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v.Ricardo MARTIN, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

Oct. 26, 1987.

Michael E. Lipson, Garden City, for appellant.

John J. Santucci, Dist. Atty., Kew Gardens (Andrea Shapiro, of counsel), for respondent.

Before THOMPSON, J.P., and EIBER, SULLIVAN and HARWOOD, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County(O'Dwyer, J.), rendered February 9, 1984, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends on appeal that the court erred in accepting his guilty plea without inquiring further as to whether he was knowingly waiving his potential justification defense.However, having failed to move to withdraw his plea of guilty, the defendant has failed to preserve this claim for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05[2];People v. Pellegrino, 60 N.Y.2d 636, 467 N.Y.S.2d 355, 454 N.E.2d 938).In any event, the record demonstrates that both the court and the defense counsel inquired as to whether the defendant understood that by pleading guilty he waived his right to raise a justification defense.The defendant acknowledged that he understood and, thereafter, he made a knowing and voluntary waiver of that defense (see, People v. McZorn, 121 A.D.2d 473, 503 N.Y.S.2d 431, lv. denied68 N.Y.2d 771, 506 N.Y.S.2d 1055, 498 N.E.2d 157;cf., People v. Quiles, 72 A.D.2d 610, 421 N.Y.S.2d 119).The record further amply demonstrates that the court conducted a detailed plea allocution which fully satisfied the requirements of People v. Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9, 471 N.Y.S.2d 61, 459 N.E.2d 170.

We also find that the defendant's arguments with respect to those branches of his omnibus motion which were to suppress his inculpatory statements to law enforcement officials and certain identification testimony have been waived by his guilty plea because the defendant specifically withdrew his motion and pleaded guilty prior to a judicial resolution of his suppression claims (see, People v. Fernandez, 67 N.Y.2d 686, 688, 499 N.Y.S.2d 919, 490 N.E.2d 838;People v. Plummer, 122 A.D.2d 285, 505 N.Y.S.2d 190, lv. denied68 N.Y.2d 916, 508 N.Y.S.2d 1037, 501 N.E.2d 610;People v. Pescatore, 102 A.D.2d 834, 476 N.Y.S.2d 465).