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. Leslie SMITH, appellant.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Eugene M. Guarino, J.), rendered May 24, 2022, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The record demonstrates that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 257, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145; People v. Esson, 225 A.D.3d 786, 205 N.Y.S.3d 496). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court adequately explained, and the defendant acknowledged that he understood, the separate and distinct nature of the waiver of the right to appeal (see People v. Esson, 225 A.D.3d at 787, 205 N.Y.S.3d 496; People v. Headley, 197 A.D.3d 1329, 1330, 151 N.Y.S.3d 905). The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of his challenges to the court's suppression determination (see People v. Callejo, 237 A.D.3d 1218, 1219, 231 N.Y.S.3d 628; People v. Vidal, 233 A.D.3d 1055, 1055, 222 N.Y.S.3d 664) and to the procedure used to adjudicate him a second felony offender (see People v. Simpson, ––– A.D.3d ––––, 243 N.Y.S.3d 528; People v. Leon, 200 A.D.3d 717, 717, 154 N.Y.S.3d 875; People v. Meyers, 172 A.D.3d 1236, 1237, 98 N.Y.S.3d 879; People v. Rodriguez, 82 A.D.3d 794, 795, 917 N.Y.S.2d 917).
To the extent the defendant contends that New York's predicate felony offender statutes are facially unconstitutional, that contention is not precluded by the appeal waiver (see People v. Johnson, ––– N.Y.3d ––––, ––– N.Y.S.3d ––––, ––– N.E.3d ––––, 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 06528). However, that contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Hernandez, 43 N.Y.3d 591, 597, 239 N.Y.S.3d 59, 265 N.E.3d 1076; People v. Munoz, 237 A.D.3d 1110, 1111, 230 N.Y.S.3d 414), and we decline to reach it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see People v. Munoz, 237 A.D.3d at 1111, 230 N.Y.S.3d 414).
CHAMBERS, J.P., WOOTEN, VENTURA and GOLDBERG VELAZQUEZ, JJ., concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: 2022-04479
Decided: December 24, 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)