People v. Salters

• Decision Date: 09 October 2020
• Docket Number: KA 16-00425,863
• Citation: 187 A.D.3d 1677,133 N.Y.S.3d 171
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Clifford L. SALTERS, Jr., Defendant-appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

187 A.D.3d 1677

133 N.Y.S.3d 171

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,

v.Clifford L. SALTERS, Jr., Defendant-appellant.

863

KA 16-00425

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

Entered: October 9, 2020

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (BENJAMIN L. NELSON OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (DEREK HARNSBERGER OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., NEMOYER, CURRAN, WINSLOW, AND BANNISTER, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of manslaughter in the first degree ( Penal Law § 125.20 [1] ), defendant contends that County Court erred in granting the People's motion for a pretrial protective order concerning the identity of certain prosecution witnesses. By pleading guilty, however, defendant forfeited that contention because "the forfeiture occasioned by a guilty plea extends to claims premised upon, inter alia, ... motions relating to discovery," such as the People's motion for a protective order here ( People v. Gerber , 182 A.D.2d 252, 260, 589 N.Y.S.2d 171 [2d Dept. 1992], lv denied 80 N.Y.2d 1026, 592 N.Y.S.2d 676, 607 N.E.2d 823 [1992] ; see People v. Perry , 50 A.D.3d 1244, 1245, 855 N.Y.S.2d 733 [3d Dept. 2008], lv denied 10 N.Y.3d 963, 863 N.Y.S.2d 147, 893 N.E.2d 453 [2008] ; People v. Oliveri , 49 A.D.3d 1208, 1209, 856 N.Y.S.2d 354 [4th Dept. 2008] ). Our ruling in People v. Wilson, 159 A.D.3d 1600, 1601, 72 N.Y.S.3d 748 [4th Dept. 2018] ) is limited to alleged Brady violations and, given the absence of a Brady claim in this case, has no applicability here. Defendant's related argument that his guilty plea was coerced "because of the restrictions imposed by [the] protective order[ ] ... is belied by the record, which reveals that [he] acknowledged under oath that nobody was forcing, threatening, or coercing him to plead guilty, and that he was entering the plea[ ]" in order to serve his best interests ( People v. Weston , 145 A.D.3d 746, 747, 43 N.Y.S.3d 413 [2d Dept. 2016], lv denied 29 N.Y.3d 1088, 64 N.Y.S.3d 178, 86 N.E.3d 265 [2017] ).