People v. Moore

• Decision Date: 22 June 2016
• Citation: 2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 04965,140 A.D.3d 1091,34 N.Y.S.3d 147
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Anthony MOORE, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

140 A.D.3d 1091

34 N.Y.S.3d 147

2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 04965

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,

v.Anthony MOORE, appellant.

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

June 22, 2016.

Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (David P. Greenberg of counsel), for appellant.

Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Solomon Neubort of counsel), for respondent.

REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., SHERI S. ROMAN, JOSEPH J. MALTESE, and COLLEEN D. DUFFY, JJ.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gary, J.), rendered November 10, 2014, convicting him of rape in the first degree and criminal sexual act in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, he knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see People v. Bethea, 133 A.D.3d 1033, 19 N.Y.S.3d 191 ). The Supreme Court adequately explained, and the defendant acknowledged that he understood, the separate and distinct nature of the waiver of the right to appeal, and the defendant signed a written waiver which he discussed with counsel and which adequately supplemented the oral colloquy (see People v. Elliot, 137 A.D.3d 715, 716, 27 N.Y.S.3d 386 ; People v. Rivera, 126 A.D.3d 727, 728, 2 N.Y.S.3d 376 ).

The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of his contention that the sentence imposed was excessive and of his challenge to the hearing court's suppression determination (see People v. Magnotta, 137 A.D.3d 1303, 27 N.Y.S.3d 403 ; People v. Walsh, 136 A.D.3d 629, 23 N.Y.S.3d 904 ; People v. Carney, 129 A.D.3d 1511, 10 N.Y.S.3d 377 ; People v. Williams, 122 A.D.3d 781, 994 N.Y.S.2d 867 ; People v. Sanchez, 122 A.D.3d 778, 778–779, 995 N.Y.S.2d 609 ). The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal also precludes review of his claim that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel during the suppression hearing, except to the extent that the alleged ineffective assistance may have affected the voluntariness of his plea (see People v. Jessamy, 137 A.D.3d 1056, 28 N.Y.S.3d 376 ; People v. Ramos, 77 A.D.3d 773, 909 N.Y.S.2d 484 ). To the extent that the defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim survives his valid waiver of the right to appeal, the claim is without merit (see People v. Morrow, 48 A.D.3d 704, 705, 852 N.Y.S.2d 327 ).