PEOPLE v. WALKER (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dineen A. Riviezzo, J.), rendered August 16, 2022, convicting him of criminal possession of a firearm, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant was convicted, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a firearm arising out of the defendant's use of a firearm on a public street in Brooklyn with multiple bystanders present.

The defendant moved pursuant to CPL 30.30(1)(a) to dismiss the indictment filed against him on the ground that the certificate of compliance (hereinafter the COC) filed by the People was invalid and the statement of readiness was illusory.  According to the defendant, at the time the People filed the COC, they had not disclosed certain materials discoverable under CPL 245.20(1).  The People opposed.  By order dated May 24, 2022, the Supreme Court denied the defendant's motion on the ground that the COC was valid and that a total of 179 days were chargeable to the People, including the time that had elapsed between the defendant's initial motion to inspect the grand jury minutes and when the People submitted them to the court due to their unreasonable delay.  The defendant appeals.

“In New York, a criminal defendant has the right to appeal from a judgment of conviction and sentence” (People v. Batista, 167 A.D.3d 69, 72, 86 N.Y.S.3d 492;  see CPL 450.10).  However, a defendant may waive, as a condition of a plea agreement, “the right to have the appellate court review most claims of error as well as whether the sentence imposed was excessive” (People v. Batista, 167 A.D.3d at 73, 86 N.Y.S.3d 492;  see People v. Christopher B., 184 A.D.3d 657, 658, 125 N.Y.S.3d 149).  A valid waiver that broadly limits the scope of appeal will generally preclude appellate review of “any issue that does not involve a right of constitutional dimension going to ‘the very heart of the process’ ” (People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 255, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145, quoting People v. Hansen, 95 N.Y.2d 227, 230, 715 N.Y.S.2d 369, 738 N.E.2d 773;  see People v. Batista, 167 A.D.3d at 73, 86 N.Y.S.3d 492).  Even after executing such a waiver, however, “a defendant [still] retains the right to appellate review of ․ the voluntariness of the plea and appeal waiver, legality of the sentence and the jurisdiction of the court” (People v. Thomas, 34 N.Y.3d 545, 566, 122 N.Y.S.3d 226, 144 N.E.3d 970).  “A waiver of the right to appeal is effective only so long as the record demonstrates that it was made knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily” (People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d at 256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145, citing People v. Calvi, 89 N.Y.2d 868, 871, 653 N.Y.S.2d 89, 675 N.E.2d 843).

The record demonstrates that the defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to appeal (see People v. Thomas, 34 N.Y.3d at 558–564, 122 N.Y.S.3d 226, 144 N.E.3d 970;  People v. Gore, 224 A.D.3d 848, 848, 205 N.Y.S.3d 486).  The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes review of his speedy trial claim (see People v. Lowe, 242 A.D.3d 771, 240 N.Y.S.3d 238;  People v. Gore, 224 A.D.3d at 848, 205 N.Y.S.3d 486).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

DUFFY, J.P., CONNOLLY, LOVE and QUIRK, JJ., concur.