PEOPLE v. PUTNAM (2008)

 Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of robbery in the second degree (Penal Law § 160.10[2][b] ).  Contrary to the contention of defendant, his waiver of the right to appeal is valid (see People v. Nichols, 32 A.D.3d 1316, 1317, 821 N.Y.S.2d 534, lv. denied 8 N.Y.3d 848, 830 N.Y.S.2d 707, 862 N.E.2d 799), and his challenge to Supreme Court's suppression ruling is encompassed by that valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v. Kemp, 94 N.Y.2d 831, 833, 703 N.Y.S.2d 59, 724 N.E.2d 754;  People v. Conway, 43 A.D.3d 635, 840 N.Y.S.2d 543, lv. denied 9 N.Y.3d 990, 848 N.Y.S.2d 607, 878 N.E.2d 1023).  In any event, we conclude that the court properly determined that defendant consented to the entry of the police into his home, and thus he was not subject to an illegal arrest (see People v. Washington, 209 A.D.2d 817, 818–819, 619 N.Y.S.2d 360, lv. denied 85 N.Y.2d 944, 627 N.Y.S.2d 1006, 651 N.E.2d 931).  The evidence at the suppression hearing established that defendant left the door open and did not object to the officer's presence in his home (see id. at 819, 619 N.Y.S.2d 360;  see also People v. Montana, 298 A.D.2d 934, 748 N.Y.S.2d 97, lv. denied 99 N.Y.2d 561, 754 N.Y.S.2d 214, 784 N.E.2d 87).

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

MEMORANDUM: