Majority
Defendant now appeals, challenging the denial of his suppression motion and claiming that his sentence is harsh and excessive. He does not, however, claim that he did not knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waive his right to appeal. Instead, he argues that he did not agree that his appeal waiver would include a waiver of his right to challenge the denial of his suppression motion. The record reveals, however, that defendant’s appeal waiver was not limited in any way and covered “all legal and constitutional grounds,” including “everything that occurred in this prosecution.” Accordingly, the valid appeal waiver forecloses his challenge to the denial of his suppression motion
Lahtinen, Spain, Kavanagh and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Cases cited
- People v. Kemp 94 NY2d 831 at 833 p. 1162
- People v. Flake 95 AD3d 1371 at 1372 p. 1162
- People v. Schmidt 57 AD3d 1104 at 1104 p. 1162
- People v. Irvis 90 AD3d 1302 at 1303 p. 1162