THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK RESPONDENT v. ALFRED BAX DEFENDANT APPELLANT (2026)

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 a plea of guilty of two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03 [3]), defendant contends, inter alia, that his waiver of the right to appeal was not knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered because County Court failed to explain the claims that would survive such a waiver. We reject that contention. The court utilized the appropriate model colloquy with respect to the waiver of the right to appeal (see NY Model Colloquies, Waiver of Right to Appeal; see generally People v Batista, 167 AD3d 69, 76-77 [2d Dept 2018], lv denied 32 NY3d 1169 [2019]), omitting only those parts of the model colloquy identifying the particular claims that survive a valid waiver of the right to appeal. We have previously rejected contentions that a “waiver of the right to appeal is invalid because the court failed to identify the precise claims that survived the waiver of appeal ․ Indeed, a court need not expressly delineate for a defendant those appellate issues that are foreclosed by a waiver of the right to appeal, and those that survive, in order for the court to obtain a valid appeal waiver” (People v Ogden, 244 AD3d 1774, 1776 [4th Dept 2025] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Giles, 219 AD3d 1706, 1707 [4th Dept 2023], lv denied 40 NY3d 1039 [2023]; People v Wood, 217 AD3d 1407, 1408 [4th Dept 2023], lv denied 40 NY3d 1000 [2023]). It is well settled that no particular litany “explaining the finer distinction[s] in appeal waiver colloquies” is required (People v Thomas, 34 NY3d 545, 559 [2019], cert denied 589 US 1302 [2020]; see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]). Based on our review of the record, we conclude “that the court engaged defendant in an adequate colloquy to ensure that the waiver of the right to appeal was a knowing and voluntary choice” (Giles, 219 AD3d at 1707 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Ogden, 244 AD3d at 1776).

Defendant's valid waiver of the right to appeal precludes our review of his challenges to the search warrant (see People v Russell, 128 AD3d 1383, 1384 [4th Dept 2015], lv denied 25 NY3d 1207 [2015]; see also People v Sweat, 243 AD3d 686, 686 [2d Dept 2025]; People v Champion, 231 AD3d 555, 556 [1st Dept 2024], lv denied 43 NY3d 943 [2025]) as well as his challenges to the severity of his bargained-for sentence (see Lopez, 6 NY3d at 255-256; People v Faison, 244 AD3d 1823, 1824 [4th Dept 2025], lv denied 45 NY3d 945 [2026]; People v Burch, 234 AD3d 1246, 1247 [4th Dept 2025], lv denied 43 NY3d 1006 [2025]).

Entered: July 24, 2026

Ann Dillon Flynn

Clerk of the Court