PEOPLE v. HOGABONE (2008)

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Fulton County (Giardino, J.), rendered August 31, 2006, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of burglary in the third degree.

After defendant made incriminating statements about a number of burglaries, he was indicted for burglary in the third degree (four counts), grand larceny (one count) and petit larceny (three counts).   When County Court denied suppression of his statements to police and the items found during a search of his car, defendant pleaded guilty to one count of burglary in the third degree in satisfaction of the indictment and waived his right to appeal.   County Court sentenced defendant, as a second felony offender, to 3 to 6 years in prison, prompting this appeal.

 Defendant acknowledged and waived his right to appeal orally and in a detailed writing following a thorough advisement of his rights by County Court during the plea colloquy.   The court specifically told defendant that his waiver would mean that there would be no appellate review of its suppression rulings.   Also, in the written waiver, defendant acknowledged that he had discussed the consequences of his waiver with his counsel.   Thus, defendant knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see People v. Ramos, 7 N.Y.3d 737, 738, 819 N.Y.S.2d 853, 853 N.E.2d 222 [2006];  People v. Fludd, 33 A.D.3d 1124, 1125, 822 N.Y.S.2d 821 [2006], lv. denied 9 N.Y.3d 843, 840 N.Y.S.2d 770, 872 N.E.2d 883 [2007] ). Accordingly, defendant's challenges to County Court's suppression rulings are precluded (see People v. Kemp, 94 N.Y.2d 831, 833, 703 N.Y.S.2d 59, 724 N.E.2d 754 [1999];  People v. Hunt, 29 A.D.3d 1081, 1083, 814 N.Y.S.2d 401 [2006], lv. denied 7 N.Y.3d 813, 822 N.Y.S.2d 488, 855 N.E.2d 804 [2006] ), and his challenge to the admission of evidence at the Huntley/Mapp hearing and to the severity of the sentence imposed are foreclosed (see People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 255, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 [2006];  People v. Romano, 45 A.D.3d 910, 912, 845 N.Y.S.2d 151 [2007] ).

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

ROSE, J.

CARDONA, P.J., PETERS, CARPINELLO and MALONE JR., JJ., concur.