PEOPLE v. MAGNY (2018)

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Wayne M. Ozzi, J.), rendered June 19, 2014, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, endangering the welfare of a child, and unlawful possession of marijuana, upon a jury verdict, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.  The appeal brings up for review the denial, without a hearing (Martin P. Murphy, J.), of the defendant's motion to controvert a search warrant and to suppress physical evidence seized in the execution thereof or, in the alternative, for Mapp (see Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081) and Darden (see People v. Darden, 34 N.Y.2d 177, 356 N.Y.S.2d 582, 313 N.E.2d 49) hearings.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's waiver of his right to appeal his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made, and encompassed the denial of his motion to controvert a search warrant and to suppress physical evidence seized in the execution thereof or, in the alternative, for Mapp (see Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081) and Darden (see People v. Darden, 34 N.Y.2d 177, 356 N.Y.S.2d 582, 313 N.E.2d 49) hearings with respect to that conviction (see People v. Kemp, 94 N.Y.2d 831, 833, 703 N.Y.S.2d 59, 724 N.E.2d 754;  People v. Kane, 151 A.D.3d 751, 53 N.Y.S.3d 562).

The defendant only partially preserved for appellate review his arguments, with respect to his convictions of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, endangering the welfare of a child, and unlawful possession of marijuana, that his motion to controvert and suppress or, in the alternative, for Mapp and Darden hearings was improperly denied (see CPL 470.05[2] ).  In any event, the motion was properly denied, as the warrant application demonstrated the existence, reliability, and basis of the knowledge of the confidential informant, and established that there was probable cause for the search warrant (see People v. Slater, 141 A.D.3d 677, 677–678, 35 N.Y.S.3d 452;  People v. Brucciani, 82 A.D.3d 1001, 1002, 919 N.Y.S.2d 54;  People v. Hunter, 56 A.D.3d 684, 868 N.Y.S.2d 87).  Moreover, the defendant failed to establish entitlement to either a Mapp or a Darden hearing (see People v. France, 12 N.Y.3d 790, 791, 879 N.Y.S.2d 36, 906 N.E.2d 1070;  People v. Hamilton, 276 A.D.2d 715, 716, 717 N.Y.S.2d 545).

MASTRO, J.P., LEVENTHAL, BARROS and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.