PEOPLE v. SALTERS (2020)

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 manslaughter in the first degree (Penal Law § 125.20 [1]), defendant contends that County Court erred in granting the People's motion for a pretrial protective order concerning the identity of certain prosecution witnesses. By pleading guilty, however, defendant forfeited that contention because “the forfeiture occasioned by a guilty plea extends to claims premised upon, inter alia, ․ motions relating to discovery,” such as the People's motion for a protective order here (People v. Gerber, 182 A.D.2d 252, 260, 589 N.Y.S.2d 171 [2d Dept. 1992], lv denied 80 N.Y.2d 1026, 592 N.Y.S.2d 676, 607 N.E.2d 823 [1992]; see People v. Perry, 50 A.D.3d 1244, 1245, 855 N.Y.S.2d 733 [3d Dept. 2008], lv denied 10 N.Y.3d 963, 863 N.Y.S.2d 147, 893 N.E.2d 453 [2008]; People v. Oliveri, 49 A.D.3d 1208, 1209, 856 N.Y.S.2d 354 [4th Dept. 2008]). Our ruling in People v. Wilson, 159 A.D.3d 1600, 1601, 72 N.Y.S.3d 748 [4th Dept. 2018]) is limited to alleged Brady violations and, given the absence of a Brady claim in this case, has no applicability here. Defendant's related argument that his guilty plea was coerced “because of the restrictions imposed by [the] protective order[ ] ․ is belied by the record, which reveals that [he] acknowledged under oath that nobody was forcing, threatening, or coercing him to plead guilty, and that he was entering the plea[ ]” in order to serve his best interests (People v. Weston, 145 A.D.3d 746, 747, 43 N.Y.S.3d 413 [2d Dept. 2016], lv denied 29 N.Y.3d 1088, 64 N.Y.S.3d 178, 86 N.E.3d 265 [2017]).