People v Soto

People v Soto 2007 NY Slip Op 10049 [46 AD3d 395] December 20, 2007 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, February 13, 2008

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v
Jason Soto, Appellant.

—[*1] Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York City (Jody Ratner of counsel), for appellant.

Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York (Marc Krupnick of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert M. Stolz, J., at hearing; Charles H. Solomon, J., at plea and sentence), rendered March 14, 2006, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of one year, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant made a valid waiver of his right to appeal, which forecloses review of his suppression claim. The court expressly informed him that as a condition of the plea, he was agreeing to waive his right to appeal, and the court explicitly separated that right from the rights automatically forfeited by a guilty plea (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256-257 [2006]). Furthermore, the record makes it clear that not only did defendant have the opportunity to discuss the proposed appeal waiver with his lawyer, but he also executed a detailed written waiver in which he stated that he agreed to give up his right to appeal because he was receiving a favorable plea and sentence agreement (see People v Ramos, 7 NY3d 737 [2006]). In any event, were we to find the waiver to be unenforceable, we would reject the suppression claim on the merits. Concur—Lippman, P.J., Marlow, Williams and Gonzalez, JJ.