People v. Zeoli

• Decision Date: 23 February 1995
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Angelo ZEOLI, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 991

622 N.Y.S.2d 991

212 A.D.2d 935

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Angelo ZEOLI, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

Third Department.

Feb. 23, 1995.

Hollie Bethmann, Troy, for appellant.

Mary O. Donohue, Dist. Atty. (Bruce Knoll, of counsel), Troy, for respondent.

Before CARDONA, P.J., and MIKOLL, WHITE, CASEY and YESAWICH, JJ.

YESAWICH, Justice.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Rensselaer County (Keegan, J.), rendered March 9, 1993, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree.

A review of the record discloses that defendant's negotiated guilty plea was not, as he asserts, the product of duress or coercion, but rather was knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently made, and that County Court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to permit him to withdraw the plea (see, People v. Torres, 176 A.D.2d 417, 574 N.Y.S.2d 405; People v. Hayes, 169 A.D.2d 999, 1000, 565 N.Y.S.2d 276, lv. denied 78 N.Y.2d 955, 573 N.Y.S.2d 651, 578 N.E.2d 449). By pleading guilty, defendant, except as hereafter noted, forfeited the right to challenge his conviction on the various grounds he advances on appeal (see, People v. Gerber, 182 A.D.2d 252, 259-261, 589 N.Y.S.2d 171, lv. denied 80 N.Y.2d 1026, 592 N.Y.S.2d 676, 607 N.E.2d 823).

Moreover, at the time of his plea, defendant expressly withdrew all pretrial motions that had been made or could have been made on his behalf (see, People v. Andrews, 146 A.D.2d 787, 787-788, 537 N.Y.S.2d 268) and gave up his right to any and all further appeals or other proceedings in this matter. As a result of this broad and explicit waiver (see, People v. Allen, 82 N.Y.2d 761, 763, 603 N.Y.S.2d 820, 623 N.E.2d 1170), which we also find to have been voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently made (see, People v. Seaberg, 74 N.Y.2d 1, 11, 543 N.Y.S.2d 968, 541 N.E.2d 1022), defendant has relinquished his right to appellate review of County Court's denial of his suppression motion (see, People v. Williams, 36 N.Y.2d 829, 830, 370 N.Y.S.2d 904, 331 N.E.2d 684, cert. denied 423 U.S. 873, 96 S.Ct. 141, 46 L.Ed.2d 104; People v. Torres, supra, 176 A.D.2d at 417, 574 N.Y.S.2d 405; People v. Hayes, supra, 169 A.D.2d at 1000, 565 N.Y.S.2d 276).

There is merit, however, in defendant's final contention, that County Court erred in denying him the right to a hearing when he contested the constitutionality of a predicate felony conviction (see, CPL 400.21 [5], [7] [b]. Having specified the particular basis for his claim (see, People v. West, 181 A.D.2d 945, 581 N.Y.S.2d 469; People v. Frett, 79 A.D.2d 991, 434 N.Y.S.2d 481), and requested a transcript of the relevant portion of the previous proceeding, defendant was entitled to a hearing (see, People v. Sutliff, 176 A.D.2d 1033, 1034, 574 N.Y.S.2d 875; People v. Allen, 135 A.D.2d 1034, 1035, 522 N.Y.S.2d 968). Of course, should it be determined that defendant may not be sentenced as a predicate felon, the People would be entitled to move to vacate the plea (see, People v. Corey, 88 A.D.2d 560, 450 N.Y.S.2d 487).

Finally, inasmuch as defendant's claims of...