Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, v. MICHAEL TILLMAN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
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 criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 220.09 [1]), defendant contends that his plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, or intelligently entered because County Court coerced him into accepting the plea. By not moving to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction, defendant failed to preserve his contention for our review (see People v Jackson, 233 AD3d 1520, 1520 [4th Dept 2024], lv denied 43 NY3d 930 [2025]; People v Racona, 227 AD3d 1544, 1544-1545 [4th Dept 2024], lv denied 42 NY3d 1081 [2025]), and we decline to exercise our power to review the contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [3] [c]).
Defendant further contends that the court erred in refusing to suppress tangible evidence obtained pursuant to a search warrant. Inasmuch as defendant did not challenge the warrant in the suppression court on the specific grounds raised on appeal, his contention is not preserved for our review (see People v Socciarelli, 203 AD3d 1556, 1558 [4th Dept 2022], lv denied 38 NY3d 1035 [2022]; People v Navarro, 158 AD3d 1242, 1243-1244 [4th Dept 2018], lv denied 31 NY3d 1120 [2018]; People v Santos, 122 AD3d 1394, 1395 [4th Dept 2014]). We
decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [3] [c]).
Entered: October 3, 2025
Ann Dillon Flynn
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 664
Decided: October 03, 2025
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)