People v. Reynolds

• Decision Date: 23 September 2020
• Docket Number: Ind. No. 3249/13,2016–02679
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Isaiah REYNOLDS, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

186 A.D.3d 1535
129 N.Y.S.3d 495

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,
v.
Isaiah REYNOLDS, appellant.

2016–02679
Ind. No. 3249/13

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

Argued—February 25, 2020
September 23, 2020

129 N.Y.S.3d 496

Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (A. Alexander Donn of counsel), for appellant.

Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, Roni C. Piplani, and Peter R. Isham of counsel), for respondent.

MARK C. DILLON, J.P., RUTH C. BALKIN, LEONARD B. AUSTIN, COLLEEN D. DUFFY, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

186 A.D.3d 1535

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Robert C. Kohm, J.), rendered January 12, 2016, convicting him of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's purported waiver of his right to appeal was invalid. The defendant was incorrectly informed, in a preprinted waiver form, that his appellate waiver encompassed, in effect, any issue that might arise with regard to a predicate felony adjudication or an enhanced sentence (see People v. Seaberg, 74 N.Y.2d 1, 11, 543 N.Y.S.2d 968, 541 N.E.2d 1022 ;

129 N.Y.S.3d 497

People v. Batista, 167 A.D.3d 69, 75 n. *, 86 N.Y.S.3d 492 ; People v. Salako, 165 A.D.3d 846, 847, 86 N.Y.S.3d 93 ). The form also mischaracterized the appellate rights waived as encompassing an absolute bar to the pursuit of postconviction collateral relief, including relief pursuant to CPL 440.10 and 440.20 (see People v. Thomas, 34 N.Y.3d 545, 565–566, 122 N.Y.S.3d 226, 144 N.E.3d 970 ). None of these misleading statements were corrected by the Supreme Court during its oral colloquy (see People v. Bradshaw, 18 N.Y.3d 257, 267, 938 N.Y.S.2d 254, 961 N.E.2d 645 ). Therefore, the purported waiver of the defendant's right to appeal cannot be considered knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v. Thomas, 34 N.Y.3d at 566, 122 N.Y.S.3d 226, 144 N.E.3d 970 ).

Since the defendant's purported appellate waiver was invalid, it does not preclude appellate review of the defendant's contentions concerning the suppression ruling (see People v. Jemmott, 125 A.D.3d 1005, 1005–1006, 5 N.Y.S.3d 447 ) or that the sentence imposed was excessive (see People v. Quezada, 122 A.D.3d 948, 948–949, 997 N.Y.S.2d 475 ).

On a motion to suppress physical evidence, the People bear

186 A.D.3d 1536

the burden of establishing the legality of police conduct in the first instance (see People v. Hernandez, 40 A.D.3d 777, 778, 836 N.Y.S.2d 219 ). Once this burden is met, "the defendant bears the burden of establishing that the arrest was not based on...