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, etc., respondent, v. Amiyn WHITE, appellant.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Eugene M. Guarino, J.), rendered January 24, 2023, convicting him of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, his waiver of the right to appeal was valid. Although much of the discussion of the waiver of the right to appeal took place after the defendant had admitted his guilt, the defendant acknowledged that an appeal waiver was a condition of the plea agreement prior to his plea of guilty and admission of guilt. Thus, it cannot be said that the defendant “received no material benefit from his appeal waiver,” or that the appeal waiver “was a gratuitous, after-the-fact additional demand asserted after the bargain had already been struck” (People v. Sutton, 184 A.D.3d 236, 245, 125 N.Y.S.3d 739; see People v. Bryant, 28 N.Y.3d 1094, 1095–1096, 45 N.Y.S.3d 335, 68 N.E.3d 60; People v. Williams, 227 A.D.3d 480, 481, 211 N.Y.S.3d 48). Under the totality of the circumstances, including the exemplary explanation of the right to appeal provided to the defendant and the defendant's age, experience, and background, the waiver was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v. Sanders, 25 N.Y.3d 337, 340, 12 N.Y.S.3d 593, 34 N.E.3d 344; People v. Bradshaw, 18 N.Y.3d 257, 264, 938 N.Y.S.2d 254, 961 N.E.2d 645).
The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of his contention that his conviction is unconstitutional in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 142 S.Ct. 2111, 213 L.Ed.2d 387 (see People v. Johnson, 225 A.D.3d 453, 453–454, 206 N.Y.S.3d 584; People v. Fisher, 121 A.D.3d 1013, 995 N.Y.S.2d 168; but see People v. Benjamin, 216 A.D.3d 1457, 186 N.Y.S.3d 876), as well as his contention that the period of postrelease supervision imposed as part of his sentence was excessive (see People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145).
LASALLE, P.J., GENOVESI, TAYLOR and HOM, JJ., concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 2023-01412
Decided: January 22, 2025
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
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)