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. Akim DONGO, Appellant.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Giaccio, J.), rendered February 8, 1996, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
We agree with the defendant's contention, as conceded by the People, that his purported waiver of his right to appeal, made as a condition of his plea of guilty, was ineffective. The court made no inquiry on the record as to whether the defendant understood the implications of the waiver (see, People v. McCaskell, 206 A.D.2d 547, 615 N.Y.S.2d 55). Furthermore, the court wholly failed to explain to the defendant the extent of the appellate rights he would be required to waive (see, People v. Bryant, 225 A.D.2d 786, 640 N.Y.S.2d 157). Inasmuch as the record is insufficient to find the defendant's waiver of his right to appeal to have been knowing, intelligent, and voluntary (see, People v. Callahan, 80 N.Y.2d 273, 590 N.Y.S.2d 46, 604 N.E.2d 108), his present contentions challenging the denial of that branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence are properly presented for our review (see, People v. Cohen, 210 A.D.2d 343, 620 N.Y.S.2d 92).
Nevertheless, the court correctly denied that branch of the defendant's motion which was to suppress a gun recovered incident to his arrest. The court's determination rested largely upon its assessment of the credibility of the testifying officer and is entitled to great deference (see, People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 395 N.Y.S.2d 635, 363 N.E.2d 1380). Since the court's conclusion is amply supported by the credible evidence adduced at the suppression hearing, it need not be disturbed (see, People v. Garafolo, 44 A.D.2d 86, 353 N.Y.S.2d 500).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
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.
Decided: November 03, 1997
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)