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. DEVON SCOTT, ALSO KNOWN AS “GHOST”, 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 following a plea of guilty of murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25[1] ), defendant contends that his waiver of the right to appeal is not valid and that Supreme Court erred in refusing to suppress statements he made to the police as well as identification testimony from several witnesses. We reject defendant's contentions.
Contrary to defendant's contention, “the waiver of the right to appeal was not rendered invalid based on the court's failure to require defendant to articulate the waiver in his own words” (People v. Dozier, 59 AD3d 987, 987, lv denied 12 NY3d 815). Moreover, the record establishes that the court “describ[ed] the nature of the right being waived without lumping that right into the panoply of trial rights automatically forfeited upon pleading guilty,” and ensured that defendant's waiver was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered (People v. Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 257; see e.g. People v. McClain, 112 AD3d 1334, 1335, lv denied 23 NY3d 965; People v. Verse, 61 AD3d 1409, 1409, lv denied 12 NY3d 930). Defendant further contends that the waiver of the right to appeal was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered based on his mental limitations, including potential learning disabilities. Although the record establishes that defendant “may be learning disabled,” there is no “ ‘indication that defendant was uninformed, confused or incompetent when he’ waived his right to appeal” (People v. DeFazio, 105 AD3d 1438, 1439, lv denied 21 NY3d 1015), nor is there any basis to conclude that the court did not adequately mold its colloquy to the “age, experience and background of the accused” (People v. Seaberg, 74 N.Y.2d 1, 11).
The valid waiver of the right to appeal forecloses any challenge by defendant to the court's suppression rulings (see People v. Kemp, 94 N.Y.2d 831, 833; People v. Burley, 136 AD3d 1404, 1404, lv denied 27 NY3d 993).
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: KA 14–01971
Decided: November 10, 2016
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
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)