THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK RESPONDENT v. ANTWOIN ANDERSON DEFENDANT APPELLANT (2026)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

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

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his guilty plea, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16 [12]). The conviction arose after police officers executed a search warrant for defendant's residence and seized over 35 grams of a substance containing cocaine, divided into plastic bags.

We agree with defendant that his waiver of the right to appeal is invalid. County Court did not engage defendant in an adequate colloquy to ensure that the waiver of the right to appeal was a knowing and voluntary choice (see People v Edwards, 151 AD3d 1962, 1962 [4th Dept 2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 1126 [2017]). While defendant signed a written waiver, the written waiver did not cure the deficient oral colloquy because the record does not establish that the court ensured that defendant understood the written waiver or that he had read the waiver before signing it (see People v Outley, 232 AD3d 1284, 1285 [4th Dept 2024], lv denied 43 NY3d 946 [2025]). We therefore address defendant's substantive contention on appeal.

Defendant contends that the court erred in refusing to conduct a Darden hearing to confirm the existence of the confidential informant (see generally People v Darden, 34 NY2d 177, 181 [1974], rearg denied 34 NY2d 995 [1974]) and that the court erred by finding probable cause for the issuance of the search warrant. We reject those contentions. “When the People cannot establish the existence of probable cause without information obtained from a confidential informant, the court must hold a Darden hearing in camera” (People v Johnston, 158 AD3d 1206, 1207 [4th Dept 2018], lv denied 31 NY3d 1014 [2018]; see People v Edwards, 95 NY2d 486, 489 [2000]). “The purpose of such a hearing is to allay any concern that the informant is wholly imaginary and [their] statements to the police [are] fabricated” (Johnston, 158 AD3d at 1207 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Edwards, 95 NY2d at 494). Here, we conclude that a hearing was unnecessary because the search warrant was supported by an affidavit of an investigator who, inter alia, relayed the direct observations of the police officers involved in the investigation and established the existence of probable cause to support the search warrant (see People v Luciano, 152 AD3d 989, 991 [3d Dept 2017], lv denied 30 NY3d 1020 [2017]; see also People v Crooks, 27 NY3d 609, 614 [2016]).

Entered: July 24, 2026

Ann Dillon Flynn

Clerk of the Court